Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4

[richardHaw]

had the opportunity to acquire one for the F-mount. not cheap even in junk condition 

my impression after overhauling it is Nikon did plenty of cost-cutting with this lens. the overall impression was "cheap". the lens didn't even have a proper helicoid. it uses a cam to extend or retract.
there was an article on an old japanese magazine (nikon official gazette) titled "why arent these things selling!?" and the cause was the impression of cheapness. it wasnt popular even though it was sold for almost 50% less than the excellent Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 Auto. people just saved-up and got the more expensive lens. after which, nikon vowed never to produce anything like this (cheap for low-end market) until Series-E (reputation was damaged a bit). it only sold for about 3 years.
my friend is going to find that article on his library and maybe i could scan it for posterity's sake. the tone was of disappointment and learning from marketing mistakes.

its a sharp lens wide-open but contrast is a little bit muted but adequate. it certainly has a character of its own. its able to produce decent bokeh/blur but flaring was terrible. there are only 3 elements so ghosting wasnt really a problem. its an enjoyable lens to carry around, very tiny and lite.when i mate it with my Df it made my setup look like a mosquito because of the tapered look. ok, maybe an elephant sounds better. its phallic if you can even say that.

resolution is kind of low to be honest but for film it seemed OK as I checked my index print and negatives. i will post some pictures when i have time. i like it but i dont see myself using it often. since it is preset, i had to remove my split prism from my Df because even at f/4 the prism can blackout at times. this is certainly not a popular lens and not a lot of information online about this thing apart from historical stuff.

[MFloyd]

Some interesting article here http://pages.mtu.edu/~shene/FORUM/Taiwan-Forum/Lens-Talk/08-Nikkor-T-105/Nikkor-T-105.html

Of which I copy an extract here:

Of these lenses, the most puzzling one is the Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4, which was produced in March 1960. The well-known Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 is able to perform the AUTO function even in its first version. The AUTO function, in Nikon's terminology, means that the aperture is always open for focusing and metering and automatically closes down to the shooting aperture when the shutter release button is pressed down to take a photo. If Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 is such a capable lens, why did Nikon make a smaller aperture 10.5cm without the AUTO function? The full story may never be known. Maybe Nikon just wanted to make a cheaper but high quality lens that performs similarly on RF and SLR cameras. Or, maybe Nikon had learned something from Leica Elmar 105mm f/6.3 (usually referred to as the Mountain Leica). At least, some Leica fans believe this is perhaps the story. However, since the Mountain Leica is a pre-war short-lived product (1932-1937) and Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 is a post-war lens, comparing Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 against Mountain Leica seems to be a bit far-fetched. Maybe we should compare Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 with Leica's Elmar 90mm f/4, a well established lens for several decades. As a matter of fact, due to the success of the Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5, Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 survived on the market for only three years, even shorter than that of the Mountain Leica. This explains why Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 is not easily found.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have one of these, complete with the neat small lens hood (in fact, I might have several of those original hoods somewhere) and the "mandatory" CPU for improved metering..

Agree it is not the sharpest 'knife' in the drawer, but it does quite well in IR and is passable in UV too, albeit with a massive focus shift in the latter case.

A few IR examples, acquired with the D5300 (IR);

[richardHaw]

Some interesting article here http://pages.mtu.edu/~shene/FORUM/Taiwan-Forum/Lens-Talk/08-Nikkor-T-105/Nikkor-T-105.html

Of which I copy an extract here:

Of these lenses, the most puzzling one is the Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4, which was produced in March 1960. The well-known Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 is able to perform the AUTO function even in its first version. The AUTO function, in Nikon's terminology, means that the aperture is always open for focusing and metering and automatically closes down to the shooting aperture when the shutter release button is pressed down to take a photo. If Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 is such a capable lens, why did Nikon make a smaller aperture 10.5cm without the AUTO function? The full story may never be known. Maybe Nikon just wanted to make a cheaper but high quality lens that performs similarly on RF and SLR cameras. Or, maybe Nikon had learned something from Leica Elmar 105mm f/6.3 (usually referred to as the Mountain Leica). At least, some Leica fans believe this is perhaps the story. However, since the Mountain Leica is a pre-war short-lived product (1932-1937) and Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 is a post-war lens, comparing Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 against Mountain Leica seems to be a bit far-fetched. Maybe we should compare Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 with Leica's Elmar 90mm f/4, a well established lens for several decades. As a matter of fact, due to the success of the Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5, Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 survived on the market for only three years, even shorter than that of the Mountain Leica. This explains why Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4 is not easily found.

Thanks! I read that,too in Chinese. Thank goodness it was not written in simplified Chinese used by mainland china. 

[richardHaw]

I have one of these, complete with the neat small lens hood (in fact, I might have several of those original hoods somewhere) and the "mandatory" CPU for improved metering..

Agree it is not the sharpest 'knife' in the drawer, but it does quite well in IR and is passable in UV too, albeit with a massive focus shift in the latter case.

A few IR examples, acquired with the D5300 (IR);

Wow! those are sharp images 

does the low element count translate to good IR images? Can I use your samples for my blog? (credited of course).

about the focus shift, I read on the net about somebody complaining about this. I will have to test this for myself. It is certainly a very interesting lens. like driving an old VW beetle (made in Germany) with all its quirks and the dangerous battery under the seat 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

No problem with using these images Richard, provided the credit line is presented.

[richardHaw]

No problem with using these images Richard, provided the credit line is presented.

Thank you! You are a guide to every one of us who came after 

[richardHaw]

some sample shots right after the overhaul. no artistic value

just seeing how this thing works

[Fons Baerken]

Thought it was a fisheye

some sample shots right after the overhaul. no artistic value

just seeing how this thing works

[richardHaw]

no, it's the phallic-nikkor

here are some samples with film

[Akira]

Nice rendition, I would think.  Maybe cinema guys are interested in this lens?

How many aperture blades does it have?

[richardHaw]

https://richardhaw.com/2018/01/06/repair-nikkor-t-10-5cm-f-4/

I think it has 9 blades

heres the whole article. check out the flaring

[Roland Vink]

The blades have an odd shape though, the edge has strong curvature so when stopped down a little the opening has a star or saw-tooth shape. Only at smaller apertures or near wide open is the aperture a regular 9 sided polygon.

Since the optical unit is very compact (front to rear) and the focal length is moderately long, there is very little mechanical vignetting so illumination is relatively uniform even wide open.

Early samples up to about 4067xx have a lens lock seating guide in the mount, like tick mark lenses, but this feature is discontinued later on.

One nice feature of this lens is the 0.8m close focus limit so it is handy for closeups. This is much closer than the 1.2m limit of the Nikkor-P 105/2.5 from the same period. It has a classic Cooke Triplet optical design which is relatively symmetrical so close performance is pretty good.

Flare is probably due to the simple coatings and the optical design which tends to send reflections onto the image plane rather than elsewhere. The chrome filter ring does not help either, so using the little hood is useful.

[richardHaw]

Hello, Roland.

I didn't notice the iris' shape. Ill check later. according to your site, mine should be the early version

I will add what you said on the blog.

by the way, did you see my email?

[Roland Vink]

Nikon has a good article on the development of this lens, as MFloyd quoted above, this lens was designed to give good performance at a low cost:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0021/index.htm

Ric, I did receive your message thanks, I only returned from holiday last week and have been working through my backlog of emails, saving the best till last