A very used 105 f2.5 AI

[mysh]

This is one of my favorite lenses and I think you will love it.

In my opinion this is one of the lenses that every nikon shooter should have in their bag. At its price it is an amazing value. Nice bokeh, great sharpness and contrast. If you have a good copy the focus feels wonderful, and the size is great.
I use it for both portrait and landscape. Does well at both.

[David H. Hartman]

Interesting, I was offered a135 f2.8 pre AI for less than $100, but I figured it is to close to the 105, so I didn't buy it

To me the 105mm and 135mm are close and not. If the lens to subject distance remains the same then the perspective will remain the same but you'll have a tighter crop with the 135mm. If you move back with the 135mm to have the same  crop for the subject you'll have flater perspective. Also the 135mm has a narrower field of view so one can be more selective of what is included in the background.

The ability to select what is included in the background is greatly improved by moving from 50mm to 105mm and a bit more from 50mm to 135mm. My preference for 105mm over 135mm goes back to my beginning in serious photography. I owned a 135/2.8 Nikkor-Q over night and traded it the next day for a 105/2.5 Nikkor-P. I was very lucky as it was a straight trade, lens for lens. In the late '60s and early '70s the 105/2.5 was constantly on backorder. To get a 105/2.5 for an insurance replacement one store owner wrote, "Fill all or cancel" on his purchase order. EPOI who was the official importer for the US found a lens. The man's name was Bob Goddard. He was a great help to me when starting to precess my own film and print.

[Peter]

Interesting, I was offered a135 f2.8 pre AI for less than $100, but I figured it is to close to the 105, so I didn't buy it

Keep looking there are better deals. I won a Cristal clear glass surprisingly absolutely no internal dust Nikkor Q.C 135mm f2.8 that was factory Ai for under $40.00.
When it arrived I wasn't expecting something this beautiful, I have the 135mm Ai f3.5 as well. But I do have an obsession for the 105mm.
Watch the ending day and time, if it's ending on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday at 1am or later watch it. I use eSnipe at these late hours, been lucky using it.

[Daniel Bliss]

My roughly 1976 late pre-AI version of this lens is my only manual focus Nikkor.  Primarily used on a D800.  I'm guessing from the serial number this one is about a year or two younger than mine.  If it ever breaks I'll buy another. 

Curious, by the way, did the optical formula change in any way between this roughly 1973-81 model and the AIS version?

[Roland Vink]

There are basically two optical variants of the 135/2.8:

The first has 4 elements in 3 groups, and focuses to 1.5m. It started as the Nikkor-Q in Dec 1965, later the multicoated Q.C and finally the modern looking K (New Nikkor) which discontinued in mid 1975.

It was replaced by the newer version with 5 elements in 4 groups, focusing to 1.3m. This lens is much more compact. It was introduced as the pre-AI K version, upgraded to AI in 1977 and to AIS in 1981.

[Jack Dahlgren]

There are basically two optical variants of the 135/2.8:

The first has 4 elements in 3 groups, and focuses to 1.5m. It started as the Nikkor-Q in Dec 1965, later the multicoated Q.C and finally the modern looking K (New Nikkor) which discontinued in mid 1975.

It was replaced by the newer version with 5 elements in 4 groups, focusing to 1.3m. This lens is much more compact. It was introduced as the pre-AI K version, upgraded to AI in 1977 and to AIS in 1981.

Any substantial difference in the way they render images?

[Roland Vink]

Good question. I have used the AIS 135/2.8 extensively, but not the older optical design so I can't make any comparisons.

I used the AIS 135/2.8 mostly in the days of film, and a little more recently. It generally performs well, sharpness and contrast is good, background rendering is smooth. I have some doubts about it's performance at infinity and far distances, sometimes it just doesn't seem as sharp as it could be, but other times it works very well. At middle and closer distances I am pleased with its performance provided I can focus it accurately. Like most lenses of this era, it is not that well colour corrected so longitudinal colours aberrations can be visible.

I have heard of good reports from the older lens, this review is quite favorable: http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_135mm_2.8.html
I have an early K 135/2.8 which I hope to convert to AI, so I may be able to do some comparisons in the near future.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Good question. I have used the AIS 135/2.8 extensively, but not the older optical design so I can't make any comparisons.

I used the AIS 135/2.8 mostly in the days of film, and a little more recently. It generally performs well, sharpness and contrast is good, background rendering is smooth. I have some doubts about it's performance at infinity and far distances, sometimes it just doesn't seem as sharp as it could be, but other times it works very well. At middle and closer distances I am pleased with its performance provided I can focus it accurately. Like most lenses of this era, it is not that well colour corrected so longitudinal colours aberrations can be visible.

I have heard of good reports from the older lens, this review is quite favorable: http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_135mm_2.8.html
I have an early K 135/2.8 which I hope to convert to AI, so I may be able to do some comparisons in the near future.

I have a very well used 135 QC which doesn't have a large amount of contrast. If I have some time I'll clean it and see if removing some of the internal dust will make a difference.

[Peter]

I have a very well used 135 QC which doesn't have a large amount of contrast. If I have some time I'll clean it and see if removing some of the internal dust will make a difference.

That bit of dust doesn't interfere with anything, even scratches on the front element has to be huge and then the lens stopped way down to show up.
The rear element is always an issue but again I have a 105mm f2.5 with a small nick and I haven't seen any interference. I did buy a Tokina 17mm pro from B&H the lens was like new but the rear element had some sort of coating deteroration looked to be from use of the wrong cleaner along the lower edge. That showed up on the bottom corner of all my images. $120.00 17mm PRO Toki was to good to be true, I sent it back.
135mm f2.8 Nikkor QC I haven't messed with it much I shot a few photos with it so far and it's not a bad lens.
Just haven't had the time to evaluate it's limits.
I do mainly B&W so it's not a great way to evaluate it's color contrast. this was taken on a QC 135mm f2.8.

[HCS]

That is one heck of an image, Peter !

[Peter]

Thanks HDS, Although it's been punched up a bit HDR and Silver Efex PRO 2..

[HCS]

... Although it's been punched up a bit HDR and Silver Efex PRO 2..

That doesn't matter (to me), it's the result that counts (again, for me).

[Peter]

Computer dark room..

[Anthony]

The structure on the right makes me think of a Dalek.

[John Geerts]

An example of an used 105/2.5 

Although there are a lot of micro-mini scratches on the front element  (see photo 1), which don't affect the coating, it is one of my sharpest lenses.  The rest of the lens is in excellent condition, very smooth focus, no dust, AI'd ring.