NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: tommiejeep on July 24, 2015, 07:07:20
-
I've always liked the FL and now have the 105 2.5 Ai, 105 2.5 Ais and 105 2.8vr G Macro. I've been trying to get a DC 105 f2D from Nikon India but they have no idea when one might be available (not on their current Impost list) . I waited too long, they had two in stock a month ago. I was primarily looking for AF for some Event candid portraits. The 105vr can be a bit harsh on some of the women I shoot :)
Bjorn's Nikon lens info has disappeared from the other site and on his old site the lens is not updated on FX bodies. I've recently been offered two copies of the lens at good to reasonable prices. I would be using on the Df and D750. I am very happy with both 105 2.5's. Am I really gaining anything by getting the 1.8 (other than faster lens at significantly more weight ) .
It seems that most do not rate it very highly at f1.8 where as the 105 2.5's are rated very good at f2.5. Hate to turn down good glass for good prices (NAS) :(
Thoughts , good and bad. Edit: a bit to broad , anyone shooting a combo of the mentioned lenses have a strong preference for the F1.8 and if so, why ?
Tom
-
All the 105/1.8s I've ever examined had unusually stiff focus action, even after being freshly greased by a competent repair shop.
I had one way back on film, so can't help with describing the image quality.
-
Thanks Keith, interesting. I am more concerned about image quality but build and ease of use do come into it :) .
Tom
-
Image quality is good to excellent. A bit softer wide open than the f/2.5, mainly due to some veiling flare. This can of course be utilised visually so not as big problem as it sounds (think of the 50/1.2 which acts pretty much similar). Bokeh is nice.
Stopping down increases sharpness and at f/5.6 it is indistinguishable from the 105/2.5.
Foucsing feels somewhat stiffer than usual for an AIS lens.
-
As to the 105 DC for AF: this is the one combination that never should be offered for AF. Due to the DC feature, absolute point of focus is not clearly defined in a single plane (because of the introduced spherical aberration). Even with the DC feature turned off, AF still fumbles and at very least needs massive fine-tuning.
-
I have 4 Ais lenses, and the 105/1.8 doesn't feel any more stiffer to focus than what I think is the norm.
by comparison, the 180/2.8 is much stiffer, and the 24/2 is much looser(but this one needs a service as it also squeaks when focused).
It feels similar to the 50/1.2(which is also the Ais model).
My 105 does however feel about 20% more stiff in focusing from infinity to close(ie. in this specific direction!) than it does from focusing from close to infinity.
So there is a problem(which doesn't really feel like a problem, more of a note!)
As for IQ. very nice.
I don't have the 105/2.5 as others do for comparison, but compared to the 105/2.8 VR .. at f2.8 the Ais lens is sharper and more contrasty.
I find f/1.8 acceptable, and it's the kind of lens that many 'elderly' females may describe as 'complementary' rendering.
There's not enough difference at f/2 of any noteworthiness, but at f/2.8 you would see a large enough difference in contrastiness/sharpness.
I use it on a D800E and (occasionally) on the D300, but it should be noted that on both those cameras I have thirdparty focusing screens fitted.
On the D800, I have a focusingscreen S type, which gives a darkened image in the vf on slower lenses.
This is one of my primary concerns, as even with an f/2.8 lens, the vf is darkened enough to make it notable.
With the 105/1.8 fitted, the view is usably bright, so focusing is made easier(note: not easy! .. but easier .. especially at close distances)
By comparison, the 105VR is much darker on the my D800. Of course this makes accurate focusing a little more difficult for me.
So if any of my comments appear biased, or to be waxing lyrically, it's only because of the way my D800 is setup.
On the D300(with a katzeye focusing screen), because of the screen type, there is no difference in the way either lens renders through to the vf.
Weight wise, I feel the 105VR and 105/1.8 are about on par. The 105VR feels a lot bigger tho(as it is physically bigger).
It feels both wider and longer, even tho it's really only longer.
The diameter of the two lenses are really about the same(at the focusing collar), but the 105/1.8 becomes slimmer at the lens hood, and has a recessed aperture control.
So, as a comparison to the 105VR, the feeling of handling of the 105/1.8 is that it feels a lot smaller than the 105VR.
I don't have overly fat fingers, or large hands, but access to the aperture ring is easy and natural.
My take on this lens(now that I have it):
I'd recommend to myself that this lens is worth it, so get one.
* as means for comparison tho, I have the 50/1.2 Ais lens too and at the prices they go for, I'd not recommend to myself to get this lens again. Not that it's a bad lens, It's just not as nice as I thought it was going to be. At the price we pay for our stuff here in Aus .. I'd have been better off spending a few hundred more and getting a Sigma 50Art instead.
The 105/1.8 doesn't give me that kind'a feeling tho.
My next step is to organise a CPU for it (from BR of course). But this will have to wait until I can find a way to remove a damaged screw first.
-
Thanks Arthur, I had pretty much decided not to go for either but have some time since both sellers ate travelling at the moment. Both are probably at a price that I would not loose on the purchase :)
I dare not talk about my wife's age but she always wanted me to use the 85 1.4D when shooting her but now she insists on the 135 2.8 Q and the Gary Fong LightSphere when possible :).
'nough said ;) . She also prefers the Df or D700 to the D750.....
Tom
-
The 105/1.8 was on my wish-list for a very long time, but finally been able to acquire a nearly mint copy at the end of the production-range. The price was surprisingly low.
It handles nicely and focusing can be compared with the 50/1.2
It gives a very pleasant transition at f/2 (on the Df)
-
John, Love the portrait of Puck. I take it he is a ginger Tom? Does he have different coloured eyes?
-
Thanks, Mike. Yes, he is a ginger Tom ;) (nice expression by the way) The colour of his eyes are identical but there are two different light sources, daylight comes from the left.
-
Thanks John just wondered. ;) Because most ginger cats are Toms.
-
The 105mm f/1.8 does have a stiffer focusing ring than the 105mm f/2.5, though it is (or should be) very smooth. Which you would prefer depends on whether you value speed or precision. I'm sure the extra stiffness was to allow for the extra precision needed when shooting at f/1.8 or f/2.
Tom, have you seend my comparison thread on the two?
-
An example of the 105/1.8 with the Nikon D800E at f/2 (Somehow the f/2 is a bit smoother than the f/1.8, comparable with the 50mm or 55mm f/1.2 at f/1.4)
The room is quit dark, and light is also coming from the glass shed roof.
-
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the 105/1.8 Nikkor is its ability to handle strong light sources.
In the Maple Leaf picture I shot straight into a high-pressure mercury street lamp and yet the lens managed to convey a lot of detail and very little flare. No EXIF available for this old shot, though, but I probably would operate the lens near wide open as the Nikon D1 used at that time didn't cope well with higher ISO or long exposures.
For the industrial build complex, shot with a Nikon Df at the 'blue hour' after a winter sunset, I intentionally stopped down the lens to f/11 to gain more depth of field plus get the nice star-bursts from the street lamps. This image also faithfully portrays the feeling of those warm blue hues so typical for the Nordic blue light at nightfall.
-
All the 105/1.8s I've ever examined had unusually stiff focus action, even after being freshly greased by a competent repair shop.
how stiff? does it have a long focus throw? if so then a lighter grease should have been used. :o :o :o
-
I've used and loved the 105/1.8 on my FM2 body. I also felt that the focus ring was a bit on the stiffer side. I suspect that the metal used for the focus ring is thin and easy to be squeezed by the focusing fingers, which would help make the rotation stiffer.
-
how stiff? does it have a long focus throw? if so then a lighter grease should have been used. :o :o :o
That's what I think. I once shot with a 105/1.8 that was brand new (in about 1981), and it wasn't stiff. Maybe it needs the thinner grade of grease in order to feel "normal", and the repair techs don't know it.
-
My sample of the 105/1.8 AIS has a focusing action on the stiffer side. According to my notes, I have owned the lens since the early '90s, purchased brand new at the time, and the stiffness has followed the lens all the way.
The lens has never been serviced by any repair shop.
However, my annoyance with this lens is directed towards the sloppy lens hood not the focusing, as the latter suits my slow work speed with the 105.
-
I wouldn't call it stiffness, a bit more 'resistance' for critical focusing. My sample is nearly mint. It behaves the same as my 35/1.4 AIS, 55/1.2 AI and 85/1.8K
Agree on the small (useless) internal hood. I tried several options (based on what I have), HN-24, step down to HN-7 or HS-4, or step up to HN-28 which I prefer right now.
-
one reason why a thicker grease is used is to avoid oily aperture :o :o :o
maybe the construction of that lens calls for a thicker grease ::) some lenses have the iris in configurations where grease migration is going to be a problem.
-
one reason why a thicker grease is used is to avoid oily aperture :o :o :o
maybe the construction of that lens calls for a thicker grease ::) some lenses have the iris in configurations where grease migration is going to be a problem.
I owned a 105/1.8 AIS briefly when it was first available in Los Angles, CA. I didn't care for the lens. It self focused when tipped up at a 60 degree angle. I ran it off against three 105/2.5(s) N-C to AIS and a 105/2.8 AIS Micro and it came in dead last for image sharpness at 2m. The 105/2.5(s) and 2.8 beat it from f/2.8-f/5.6 and then all were equal or very close from f/8.0 and down. My guess is Nikon got complaints regarding self-focus and used a heavier grease later. A 105/1.8 AIS might find a place with me today. I only have one sample for the 105/1.8 AIS to test.
Dave
-
I didn't see any meaningful difference in sharpness between the f/1.8 and f/2.5. The real differences are that the f/1.8 handles flare much better, much less CA, and lacks the prominent corner curvature of the f/2.5. At very close ranges the f/2.5's curvature and CA make it's performance look quite poor compared to the f/1.8, but pictures of most subjects and normal ranges typically do not show these weaknesses.
The f/1.8 certainly has some flaws, the bokeh is not as nice as the f/2.5 Ai and can sometimes be too busy for me. When the focal plane is at a strong tilt to the subject, the bokeh can get a bit barfy too and really must be kept in mind. The f/1.8 can also be pretty susceptible to aperature reflections, which can either be a joy or an irritation depending on your preferences.
Seeing that the 105mms are generally seen as portrait lenses, it is easy to see why the f/2.5 is more popular by a long shot. In most portraiture use, the advantages of the f/1.8 simply are not present while the size and bokeh disadvantages are very noticeable. I prefer the f/1.8 for my uses, but would choose the f/2.5 Ai over it for portraiture without hesitation.
-
I wonder if I received a bad sample. I really didn't like my 105/1.8 AIS.
-
I wonder if I received a bad sample. I really didn't like my 105/1.8 AIS.
Some of the parameters of this lens are questionable today, optical formula is aged. The lens needs to be updated, as soon as possible. New AFS VR incarnation will be greatly appreciated, that's out of questions, as for me, of course. LZ
-
I wonder if I received a bad sample. I really didn't like my 105/1.8 AIS.
Just because a lens is technically good, doesn't mean you have to like it. I have certainly owned technically good lenses that I just never liked and ended up selling.
As far as a new 105mm f/1.8, I'd be shocked. Nikon's days of having multiple choices for primes of the same focal length, across the board, are behind them. When/if Nikon delivers a new fast 105mm, I can't see why it wouldn't be an updated DC.
-
There is a new (I think) article about the 105mm f/1.8S. It is #59 in the Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights series.
http://nikkor.com/story/0059/ (http://nikkor.com/story/0059/)
-
There is a new (I think) article about the 105mm f/1.8S. It is #59 in the Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights series.
http://nikkor.com/story/0059/ (http://nikkor.com/story/0059/)
Lorne, I'm afraid I'm not moderator. But there is already a thread for the topic:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4192.0.html
-
Oops, I didn't find that thread before posting.
-
Oops, I didn't find that thread before posting.
No worries! Hope you enjoy the thread.