Nikkor 105mm f/2.5

[tdoan]

you should buy all 5 versions  !

1: tickmark
2: chrome nose sonnar version
3: new-nikkor
4: Ai
5: Ai-S

That's good! everything has a start

Of course I have to start at the bottom.  I picked up an Ai-S but as I am leaving on a trip tomorrow and won't be back until the end of next week, it will have to sit on a shelf at the local post office, waiting for me.  Poor babe.

This is the babe on a pedestal http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-105mm-f2-5-Lens-for-Nikon-35mm-SLR-Cameras-/122018797628?nma=true&si=%252BJXXdKxdfFZwOaj%252FbS8HesIyQPk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

btw, you, Rick, are one of the absolute worst.  I keep reading your blog and having flashes of myself, branding my new Vessel, threatening the lenses "If you don't behave, I am going to take you apart and I know just how to do it ... I think.." Yes, me, the mad lens hacker

Nikon S-mount rangefinders

of course when master Bear speaks, I have no idea what he is talking about and have to google it Thank goodness for Google.

I'm in the same boat with 135mm lenses

Here they go again with the flauntings ... I am going to have to report you to the moderator   Truth be told, I had a 135 f2 on watch, debating between that and the 105 2.5

i am looking for a cheap "mountain nikkor" for myself

aren't you there already ?  Me, I will just have to build one myself.  Been practicing this song to my wife "Just one more lens honey ..." 

[Jacques Pochoy]

Even the more "modern" Ai-s version is an incredible "convenient" lens... :-) Here musing with chairs at a café's terrace at f/5.6 !


Terrasse... by ArchiVue, sur Flickr with Df and 105mm f/2.5 AI-s

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The reference to the "mountain Nikkor" is to the 105 mm f/4 Nikkor-T that lived a very brief life around 1960. It was, as indicated by the "T" designation, a triplet optic that conferred a slim, lightweight barrel. The lens used tiny 34.5 mm filters and had a cute preset aperture ring in front and an even cuter little snap-on lens hood.

The name 'mountain' was fetched from the contemporary Mountain Elmar 90 mm f/4 for the Leica M-series. Such lenses were aimed at photographers wishing to travel light-weight.

As far as I recall, there were versions for the F and S mounts concurrently and they in fact only differed in their mounts, as the optics  are identical. Th



I have a nice sample of the F-mount 105/4 T, with CPU of course ... Not a top performer by today's standards, but gets the job done discreetly. It can also do UV passably.  Must been 10-15 years ago I got it and it was not very expensive at that time. However, I refrained from getting the S version as asking prices were pretty high back then.

Briefly looked in my archives and found a few more recent images obtained with the 105/4 T. Here is one,

[richardHaw]

Hi, you can request for a tear-down guide if you need to. i have 3 versions of that lens in my notes

just make sure that you have the right tools and a steady hand and you're safe. watch professionals work in youtube as well, that will help a lot.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The T-Nikkor is so simple there is no need for any disassembly and if required, I trust Erik does this with utmost ease. The CPU modification I managed myself.

[richardHaw]

i just want to open one just for the heck of it

the 105mm is my entry drug. i started with that lens, now i have 5 dryboxes full of stuff

[Akira]

The name 'mountain' was fetched from the contemporary Mountain Elmar 90 mm f/4 for the Leica M-series. Such lenses were aimed at photographers wishing to travel light-weight.

Small correction.  The Leica lens nicknamed "Mountaim Elmer" was actually an L-mount 105mm/f6.3 lens.  It was also of a Tessar type unlike the Triotar type on which Nikkor 105/4.0 design was based.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Well, Leica-lore is obviously not my force. But the 'mountain' concept was of a small, light-weight lens longer than a normal one. Their outline would be somewhat similar. The T-Nikkor was "much" faster though, a whopping 1.3 stops ...

[richardHaw]

Of course I have to start at the bottom.

that is OK. the 105's are not rare at all unlike the 5.5cm which is starting to become even rarer even here in japan

[Akira]

Well, Leica-lore is obviously not my force. But the 'mountain' concept was of a small, light-weight lens longer than a normal one. Their outline would be somewhat similar. The T-Nikkor was "much" faster though, a whopping 1.3 stops ...

When the Mountain Elmar 105/6.3 was released in 1932, the 90/4.0 Elmar was housed in a fat lens barrel, unlike the later slim ones released in 1933.  Thus the "small and light-weight design" only applied to the 105/6.3 then.

[pluton]

 But I don't think you can call the Sonnar a Gauss design.

Correct.
The earlier design is the Sonnar-like one; the later design is the Gauss-like one.

[chris dees]

These are my 3 105's all in mint condition and working fine on my Df.

Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-P Auto 1:2.5 F=10.5cm Sonar from 1963
Nikkor-PC Auto 1:2.5 f=105mm AI-ed (Chipped by Eric) Gauss from 1973
Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-P Auto 1:2.5 f=105mm Sonar from 1971

[Roland Vink]

As far as I recall, there were versions for the F and S mounts concurrently and they in fact only differed in their mounts, as the optics  are identical.

Not only that, they also belong to the same serial number block, that is, Nikon made one set of serial number rings which were used for the F or S mount lenses.
During the rangefinder era Nikon often made lenses in multiple mounts - S, M39, Exacta, Contax - all belonging to the same serial number block. The Nikkor-T 10.5cm is the only example I know of where F and S mount lenses share the same serial numbers.

[ArendV]

Correct.
The earlier design is the Sonnar-like one; the later design is the Gauss-like one.

Thanks Pluton for confirming this !

[Airy]

The more I use it, the more I like it. Here another usage - shooting mosaics in the pretty dark church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome. Df, 12800 ISO, 1/125 handheld, wide open.
The keeper rate with such settings is near 100% on static subject : the Df + lens is heavy enough, and the "quiet" mode is also useful to keep vibration low.

At f/2.5, the lens is sharp and contrasty enough for the Df, at least when the subject is not too close. Here is an example (with 100% crop). Distance from subject may have been 10-15m.

Earlier I thought that f/2.5 was rather for slightly soft portraits, but no.