Nikon 105 1.8 Ais

[Akira]

I've used and loved the 105/1.8 on my FM2 body.  I also felt that the focus ring was a bit on the stiffer side.  I suspect that the metal used for the focus ring is thin and easy to be squeezed by the focusing fingers, which would help make the rotation stiffer.

[pluton]

how stiff? does it have a long focus throw? if so then a lighter grease should have been used.

That's what I think.  I once shot with a 105/1.8 that was brand new (in about 1981), and it wasn't stiff.  Maybe it needs the thinner grade of grease in order to feel "normal", and the repair techs don't know it.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

My sample of the 105/1.8 AIS has a focusing action on the stiffer side. According to my notes, I have owned the lens since the early '90s, purchased brand new at the time, and the stiffness has followed the lens all the way.

The lens has never been serviced by any repair shop.

However, my annoyance with this lens is directed towards the sloppy lens hood not the focusing, as the latter suits my slow work speed with the 105.

[John Geerts]

I wouldn't call it stiffness, a bit more 'resistance' for critical focusing.  My sample is nearly mint. It behaves the same as my 35/1.4 AIS,  55/1.2 AI and  85/1.8K

Agree on the small (useless) internal hood. I tried several options (based on what I have), HN-24, step down to HN-7 or HS-4, or step up to HN-28 which I prefer right now.

[richardHaw]

one reason why a thicker grease is used is to avoid oily aperture 

maybe the construction of that lens calls for a thicker grease some lenses have the iris in configurations where grease migration is going to be a problem.

[David H. Hartman]

one reason why a thicker grease is used is to avoid oily aperture 

maybe the construction of that lens calls for a thicker grease some lenses have the iris in configurations where grease migration is going to be a problem.

I owned a 105/1.8 AIS briefly when it was first available in Los Angles, CA. I didn't care for the lens. It self focused when tipped up at a 60 degree angle. I ran it off against three 105/2.5(s) N-C to AIS and a 105/2.8 AIS Micro and it came in dead last for image sharpness at 2m. The 105/2.5(s) and 2.8 beat it from f/2.8-f/5.6 and then all were equal or very close from f/8.0 and down. My guess is Nikon got complaints regarding self-focus and used a heavier grease later. A 105/1.8 AIS might find a place with me today. I only have one sample for the 105/1.8 AIS to test.

Dave

[Tristin]

I didn't see any meaningful difference in sharpness between the f/1.8 and f/2.5.  The real differences are that the f/1.8 handles flare much better, much less CA, and lacks the prominent corner curvature of the f/2.5.  At very close ranges the f/2.5's curvature and CA make it's performance look quite poor compared to the f/1.8, but pictures of most subjects and normal ranges typically do not show these weaknesses.

The f/1.8 certainly has some flaws, the bokeh is not as nice as the f/2.5 Ai and can sometimes be too busy for me.  When the focal plane is at a strong tilt to the subject, the bokeh can get a bit barfy too and really must be kept in mind.  The f/1.8 can also be pretty susceptible to aperature reflections, which can either be a joy or an irritation depending on your preferences.

Seeing that the 105mms are generally seen as portrait lenses, it is easy to see why the f/2.5 is more popular by a long shot.  In most portraiture use, the advantages of the f/1.8 simply are not present while the size and bokeh disadvantages are very noticeable.  I prefer the f/1.8 for my uses, but would choose the f/2.5 Ai over it for portraiture without hesitation.

[David H. Hartman]

I wonder if I received a bad sample. I really didn't like my 105/1.8 AIS.

[longzoom]

I wonder if I received a bad sample. I really didn't like my 105/1.8 AIS.

               Some of the parameters of this lens are questionable today, optical formula is aged. The lens needs to be updated, as soon as possible. New AFS VR incarnation will be greatly appreciated, that's out of questions, as for me, of course. LZ

[Tristin]

I wonder if I received a bad sample. I really didn't like my 105/1.8 AIS.

Just because a lens is technically good, doesn't mean you have to like it.  I have certainly owned technically good lenses that I just never liked and ended up selling. 

As far as a new 105mm f/1.8, I'd be shocked.  Nikon's days of having multiple choices for primes of the same focal length, across the board, are behind them.  When/if Nikon delivers a new fast 105mm, I can't see why it wouldn't be an updated DC. 

[Lorne]

There is a new (I think) article about the 105mm f/1.8S. It is #59 in the Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights series.
http://nikkor.com/story/0059/

[Akira]

There is a new (I think) article about the 105mm f/1.8S. It is #59 in the Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights series.
http://nikkor.com/story/0059/

Lorne, I'm afraid I'm not moderator.  But there is already a thread for the topic:

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4192.0.html

[Lorne]

Oops, I didn't find that thread before posting.

[Akira]

Oops, I didn't find that thread before posting.

No worries!  Hope you enjoy the thread.