Nikon or Nikkor?

[Roland Vink]

I've never owned the 100/2.8 Series-E but I've read that it is sharper at close focus and large apertures than the 105/2.5 AI/AIS. [...]

It would be interesting to test this, but I would be surprised if the 100/2.8 E is sharper at close range. The Xenotar 105/2.5 is a relatively symmetrical design, and such designs usually do well at close range. That's why the close focus limit was able to be reduced compared to the older non-symmetric Sonnar version. The 100/2.8 E is also not a symmetric design, and such lenses usually perform poorly at close range unless they also have close range correction.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A testable question. Hopefully I can do the comparison in the very near future.

[John Geerts]

The 100/2.5 E   I used for a while was not remarkably sharp.  I was not impressed by the lens, especially when you compare it with the 105/2.5

[Matthew Currie]

As for whether a lens must be worthy of the name, I wonder.  I note, for example, that the Cosina-made 35-70 zoom on my FM10 is a Nikkor, as is the very plasticky 28-80 AFG that came on an N65, and the very plasticky 18-55 that came on my D3200.  Entry level kit lenses all.  Whatever the reasoning behind the dual names, it appears it did not last long.

[David H. Hartman]

Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights
Tale 5...

Rendition characteristics and lens performance

So how is the rendition of the AI Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens?
As I have said before, evaluations are always subjective, so please consider my comments as my personal opinions, for reference.

As mentioned above, this lens has the features of [asymmetric] design, and in particular distortion is extremely low. The image is flat to the periphery, and astigmatism is very small.

The lens also has characteristics of spherical aberration and coma. Basically close-range aberration variation is small, but at portrait distances the correction for aberration seems to be slightly insufficient. The insufficiency as far as spherical aberration in particular is what makes defocus background appeared beautiful. The aberration balance has been calculated carefully for use in portraits. When the aperture is open contrast is good, and delineation is soft.

--Haruo Sato

The underlining above is mine. Stopping down to f/5.6 apparently cures the insufficient correction of spherical aberration. I found maximum center sharpness with three 105/2.5(s), N.C, AI and AIS to be f/5.6. The third paragraph explained my findings.

---

105mm f2.5 later    
4.8 (several samples)    

(large rear element [late non-AI with black front]), performance declines at wide stops near minimum focus (both conditions together), otherwise this lens is excellent even wide open

--David Ruether

This also fits my findings though it doesn't explain them as Tale 5 does. I did my test on Tech Pan at 2 meters and focused with a 6x finder on my F2.

I'd be interested if others find a similar trade off of image sharpness at 2 meters or portrait distance at wide apertures, say f/4.0 and wider.

Dave Hartman

[David H. Hartman]

Whatever the reasoning behind the dual names, it appears it did not last long.

A decade? I don't remember. Today any piece of junk seems worthy of degrading the Nikkor name in favor of sales and profit.

I can't remember if I posted this above or not but I tried and sort of repaired a 50/1.8 Canon FD lens for a nephew. It was a piece of plastic junk and from what I've seen of the Nikon Series-E lenses they were much better made.

A public relations customer who I printed for who turn in a lot of film with really bad image quality. She blamed her self. On day while printing I say the plane of focus was not parallel to the camera. I stopped by and check the lens and an element or group was clunking around inside. I took it to Gayson's Camera, Glendale, CA where she bought it and they shipped it to Canon. Canon repaired or replaced it free. There was no sign of impact or abuse. She asked me to test it when it came back. I found the image quality excellent. The build quality sucked! Same 50/1.8 Canon FD as my nephew's.

I wish these companies had more respect for their name. I wish Nikon still reserved the Nikkor name for their better lenses.

Dave

[Bjørn Rørslett]

And who is to decide what constitutes a "better lens" ? There are plenty of examples of acclaimed 'inferior' lenses actually being very good for some purposes.

Canon users talk about "L" lenses as these always are pinnacles of optical performance, but the truth is not that simple and many "L" items aren't that impressive at all. We used to think likewise of the golden 'ED' ring and ED designation on lenses made by Nikon, but those times are long gone.

[David H. Hartman]

In days of old a lens that didn't meat Nikkor standards of quality and performance it didn't get the name. Now anything gets the name. Junk that's taped together with a plastic bayonet. The name "Nikkor" doesn't stand for much anymore. If the bean counters make the decision any lens sold with the Nikkor name is "good."

Dave

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A quick example of what a 'non-Nikkor' and by implied extension , inferior (?) lens can do for you. Taken yesterday with the likewise low-end, long discontinued and utterly obsolete D40X and the Nikon 28 mm f/2.8 SE lens. This is an IR capture and no obvious issues with hot-spots etc. can be noticed.

[bjornthun]

In days of old a lens that didn't meat Nikkor standards of quality and performance it didn't get the name. Now anything gets the name. Junk that's taped together with a plastic bayonet. The name "Nikkor" doesn't stand for much anymore. If the bean counters make the decision any lens sold with the Nikkor name is "good."

Dave

Try to run a company without bean counters, it will not end well. Optical quality has been good with the Nikkors I used to own. Polycarbonate materials in modern lenses should not be confused with cheap plastic.

[benveniste]

I have a sample of the Nikon SE 28/2.8 in front of me. It is lightweight, yes, but plastic? Not at all. Metal all over, down to its mount.

The mount is metal, but I believe the outer barrel and several other non-stressed components are polycarbonate.  But it's certainly more solidly built than many later lenses.  I agree with your evaluation of "albeit not of the highest performance."  The non-D 28mm f/2.8 AF used the same optical formula; it too was a mediocre performer.  The other Series E lenses I've used (50mm, 100mm, 75-150mm, and 70-210mm) were all quite good.

[David H. Hartman]

Try to run a company without bean counters, it will not end well. Optical quality has been good with the Nikkors I used to own. Polycarbonate materials in modern lenses should not be confused with cheap plastic.

Where the Nikon Series-E lenses were well constructed with decent optical performance but did not receive the name "Nikkor" now anything gets the name "Nikkor." A lens with a "Polycarbonate" bayonet should be confused with a quality product. A lens that is literally held together with a band of sticky tape should not be confused with a quality product. 

Dave Hartman