Nikon 105mm f/1.8 ai-s and 105mm f/2.5 ai comparison

[John Geerts]

Very interesting test Tristin, a pleasure to read. Thanks for posting. 

What are your conclusions by the way between the old version and the obviously 'new'  F/1.8?   

[Tristin]

Between the two copies of the f/1.8?  Optically, no differences despite the second copy having not a speck of dust to be found.  The second copy is just better condition mechanically.  As there was only one version of this lens, you shouldn't find any significant differences between copies unless one has a de-centering issue.

Glad you enjoyed my testing.  I hope it will help others decided which is best for them so they don't have to buy multiple copies and test them.  This is obviously my personal opinion, but after testing them I believe the f/2.5 to have a much more popular legacy than the f/1.8 due to it's physical properties and cost rather than it's optical properties.

[pluton]

Tristin, When you say "light sources outside the FOV", do you differentiate between light sources 'just outside' the FOV but maybe within the image circle, or 'way outside' the FOV, like 170º off to the side?
Thanks for publishing your comparison...it has been interesting.

[Tristin]

By outside the FOV, I mean out of the image circle.  With these lenses I noticed flare with a glaring sun at roughly 45º to the side.  Not too far outside the lense's FOV, but the worst possible offender for flare you could find.  I couldn't imagine any light source at 50º+ to the sides causing flare with the lenses.  Let alone 170º, which would be nearly behind ya

[pluton]

The Nikon 14-24 zoom is infamous for colorful flare effects originating from light sources way off to the side.  The tele lenses are much easier to shield from side lights by employing ordinary deep lens hoods.