105/1.8 AIS Wide open

[Airy]

As shown in an older thread, the usability of that lens wide open is questionable. Aberrations are less conspicuous in B&W shots. From f/2.8, it is however at least as good as the legendary 105/2.5 AI (but for the bokeh): same sharpness, flatter field.

Here are some shots taken wide open, or at f/2.0 (the small flowers). There is little difference between f/1.8 and f/2.0.

[Airy]

From f/2.8, performance changes drastically, and gets similar to the 105/2.5. This shot was taken at f/2.8, also from a short distance (close to MFD):

[Airy]

As you can see, the bokeh can be outright weird & ugly, especially against bright light.Note that this lens is however very good for stage shots (at f/2.8-f/4.0, preferrably), as it does not flare easily.

[Airy]

Somestage shots at f/2.8, the last (square) one at f/4.0.

[Airy]

Some more, at f/5.6:

[Airy]

Cityscaping at f/8.0:

[Airy]

ah and just in case you would doubt it - chess is fun (admittedly less than go, but still...). At f/5.6.

[Roland Vink]

Here are some shots taken wide open, or at f/2.0 (the small flowers). There is little difference between f/1.8 and f/2.0.

Regardless of the lens used, I always admire pictures such as these. It is a real art to place the focus plane selectively over 3D subjects such as these and let the in-focus parts contrast so well with the out of focus foreground and background

I have often tried similar shots, but even when I use a smaller aperture to increase the DoF, my pictures often just look out of focus 

[Akira]

The first image seems to tell it all.

I used the lens only during the film days.  I didn't feel that the bokeh was that disturbing.  The potential sharpening of the digital cameras may exaggerate the bokeh character?

[John Geerts]

You show great results about the versatility of this lens, Airy.  I like the bokeh.

[ColinM]

I think im agreeing with you Airy on some points.

At f1.8, some of the results are interesting.
However i prefer the pink flowers at f5.6
And whilst the bokeh at f1.8 are dramatic, i feel they distract from the subject (e.g. 2nd & 3rd images - portrait, peach coloured flowers)

[pluton]

Nikon's approach with this lens, perhaps similar to the 135/2 Ai/AiS, is that they expect you to shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 for standard results, but make the wide aperture available for emergency use in extreme low light.
Does your copy have the relatively stiff focus rotation that this lens (105/1.8 ) is famous for?

[Airy]

I do not know the 135/2 but your comparison sounds plausible. Same with the Canon FD 135/2 by the way, marred by strong purple fringing wide open (but bokeh was good).

My copy's focus ring used to be very stiff, but I had the lens re-lubed. Now it is only moderately stiff.

[John Geerts]

Nikon's approach with this lens, perhaps similar to the 135/2 Ai/AiS, is that they expect you to shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 for standard results,

Is that the normal approach?  Nikkor 1001 lenses history comes with this remark:  "What was the concept behind its design? There were no clear answers to any of these questions. However, looking back, it seems that there was a plan to renew the line of fast lenses to coincide with release of the F3. The 85mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/1.8 appear to be proof of this plan."  https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0059/index.htm

[Erik Lund]

Wonderful sample images! Very nice


Temperamental wide open as expected, so yes gentle pp needed if you like smoothness.


Get it re-lubed with thin grease