Nikkor 105mm f/2.5

[chris dees]

Nikkor-PC 105/2.5 AI-d

[David H. Hartman]

The slight softness of the 105/2.5 Xenotar-type at close focus and wide apertures (both together) is a feature not a fault. This is explained in tale No. 5 of Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights. The 105/2.5 is often used for portraits and smooth bokeh was more important to the designer at say two meters.  For sharp photo in close stop down to f5.6 or select a 105/4.0 or 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor among others. Some complain the bokeh of the 105/2.5 isn't as good stopped down. That is the nature of the lens.

David Ruether notes this soft wide open and close distance (both together) in his subjective evaluations, also 85/2.0 and 135/2.8 (compact versions). Here's a link...

http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/slemn.html

I tested three 105/2.5 Xenotar-types and noted they achieved their sweet spot a bit later than some other prime Nikkors at two meters. Tale No. 5 explained my observations.

Dave

[Roland Vink]

1001 nights said similar about the AI 135/2 also. See:  http://www.nikkor.com/story/0030/

"The Ernostar type, which features a highly asymmetrical lens configuration, is likely to cause more significant fluctuating aberrations compared to the Gauss-type, which features a symmetrical lens configuration.

However, this lens makes good use of the characteristics; it provides sharp images in the long-range shots and leaves spherical aberration and coma in the short-range photos, thereby representing the smoothly melted edges of out-of-focus images. "

It might be worth noting the Xenotar 105/2.5, having a relatively symmetrical design, can focus closer and performs better at close range than the older Sonnar version.

[Airy]

Concurs with my observations. However, at short range for portraits, I would seldom use the full aperture, too much of the face being too obviously blurred, so there is no "problem" for me using the 105/2.5. f/5.6 is often my chosen setting for headshots, no matter the FL, at least if the background is not overly disturbing.

I also reported here, earlier, that (for instance) the old Tamron 90/2.5 was definitely the better lens at 1.0-1.5m distances in terms of sharpness wide open, and LoCA. However the Nikkor definitely has the best background blur under such circumstance. No wonder the Tamron does its job as a (primarily) macro lens...

[Hugh_3170]

NG contributor Mongo has very recently put his Tamron 90mm f/2.5 to good use here:  http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4287.0/topicseen.html

I have observed similar performance from my uncle's Tamron 90mm on his Pentax bodies.

Concurs with my observations. However, at short range for portraits, I would seldom use the full aperture, too much of the face being too obviously blurred, so there is no "problem" for me using the 105/2.5. f/5.6 is often my chosen setting for headshots, no matter the FL, at least if the background is not overly disturbing.

I also reported here, earlier, that (for instance) the old Tamron 90/2.5 was definitely the better lens at 1.0-1.5m distances in terms of sharpness wide open, and LoCA. However the Nikkor definitely has the best background blur under such circumstance. No wonder the Tamron does its job as a (primarily) macro lens...

[Airy]

Indeed. I am nevertheless pleased to use the Tamron, as I did today (more macro shoots). Still OK for general photography but a bit dull.

I can tolerate some *slight* lack of sharpness on portraits, but I would not describe it as a desirable feature, let alone a design goal. Everybody is pleased to get skin blemishes removed, but photoshop (in the right hands) does a better job than "bad" lenses here. Also, while attenuating skin defects is OK, transforming eye lashes into mush does not work for me. And removing the sparkle in the pupils even less. So 105/2.5 yes, because it is definitely good enough, but Zeiss 135/2 APO remains a good choice...

[MFloyd]

This morning, my English Bulldog taking a nap in a ray of sun.


Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 transformed and chipped by Erik L and Bjørn R.