Choosing between 10.5/2.5 and 135/2.8 Q

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Nikkor 10.5/2.5 and Nikkor Q-Auto 135/2.8

Before these two returned to my hands after being ai-ed, I thought that it would be an easy task to choose the one I would keep.
I was wrong.

Both are so nice, solid, smooth operating and just lovely.
Somehow I got impression that letting any of those two go would be an unforgivable mistake. Especially when I take into consideration ridiculous price I got them for. I found them on Japanese site Yahoo Auctions where someone was offering them as a batch with other two lenses (OM Olympus 75-100/4 and 200/5). I bid and was very pleased when I got this set of four for - - - hold on something or sit down  - - - for 14.000 yen!!! (and I still have these Olys for sale) 

Yesterday I persuaded my daughter to pose for my test shots (she hates me for this)  :-D  as I wanted to clearly compare sharpness and BG blur at various apertures.
Maybe these shots won´t make a justice for the lenses as scaling them down probably reduced their quality, but you can get a picture (pun unintended)  :-)

Shots from 135/2.8 Q at f2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11 and 16 follow.
(Shots from 10.5/2.5 should come in very next post)

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Shots from 10.5/2.5 at F2.5, 4, 5.6, 8, 11 and 16

BTW - thanks to this shooting I realised one thing - that sensor of my camera would appreciate some cleaning. I did not noticed it before as I usually shoot my lenses wide open or close them down just a tiny bit - and now - with f11 and 16 I see the things I did not know thew could exist.  :-D

[Hugh_3170]

Nice child - you have gone in closer with the 10.5cm.  I suspect the softer look of the 10.5cm lens would be more appreciated by older female subjects. 

I would keep all four lenses, since the two Olympus lenses can be used with adapters on mirrorless cameras and with a Leitax changeover bayonet mount can also be used on Nikon DSLRs.

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Thank you. Every father loves to hear that.  :-)

You are right - I was not so careful in keeping same distance.
BTW = in the meantime I got offer for the OM lenses so I will keep only Nikkors. In fact I bought so many lenses in last couple of months that it is better to let some go.  :-)

This week I will also try these lenses/or one of them also for product photography. 10.5 might not be in the same league for this as was the K-type 105/2.5 which I also had and sold some time ago, but seeing yesterdays results I do not think I will be disappointed.

[richardHaw]

clean your sensor

i like the 105, it has something special

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

I will have it cleaned. I promise.  I'm sure some of you must feel physical pain seeing the mess. 

[Matthew Currie]

They both look pretty nice to me (subject probably helps of course), but I do like the 105.  My experience is with the 135/2.8Q and a later 105 - a Gauss type from about 1971 - both on  D7100.  I've found for some reason the 105 is a good bit easier to focus than the 135, and overall works just that little bit better, but both give nice results especially when you want a nice soft background.

But unless you have some problem with space I would keep them both.  No harm in doing that even if you use one much more often.

[BruceSD]

Thanks for taking the time to post these comparisons!   Nice job!!

Both lenses have beautiful, creamy bokeh wide open - just lovely.

I prefer the "bokeh balls" produced by the 105mm lens.

I used to own the 135mm f/2.8 Q.C. version.   Now I own the AIS version of this lens.  While I never owned them at the same time, I believe that I liked the images produced by the older Q.C. version better than the newer AIS version.

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Yes - I think I’ll keep them both. I’ll try to overcome the storage space problems. 

You are welcome. I was always searching for such a kind comparative shots, so this time, after acquiring these lenses, I decided to make one myself. 

Before I sold my 105/2.5 ai-ed K version, I used it also for product photography. Today I tried this 10.5 and it also can deliver. I’m happy. 

[John Geerts]

Nice comparision.  Lovely model of course 

I like the 135mm f/2.8 QC  a lot

Posted earlier in January 2020 --  on the Z6



D850  November 2018



Df  October 2018



Df with 4T   May 2018



Df  March 2018

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

I like your shots and really looking forward to shooting with these lenses more.

[Roland Vink]

Both are very good lenses with high sharpness (when focused accurately!) and smooth bokeh. Of the images posted here I prefer the 135 QC, the 7-sided bokeh-balls look more natural to me. The 6-sided blurs from the 10.5cm are distracting although the comparison is maybe a little unfair as there were more cars in the background giving strong background highlights. The longer focal length/narrower angle of view of the 135 QC and larger entrance pupil also help to blur out the background more, if that is the effect you want.

[Roland Vink]

Nice comparision.  Lovely model of course 

I like the 135mm f/2.8 QC  a lot

Great pictures, really shows what this "old" lens can do. Are the last pictures heavy crops or did you use closeup attachments? The 135 QC does not focus very close by itself.

[John Geerts]

Great pictures, really shows what this "old" lens can do. Are the last pictures heavy crops or did you use closeup attachments? The 135 QC does not focus very close by itself.

Thanks Roland.

For the macro-shots I used the Nikon Close Up Attachment lens T4   (52mm)

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Two culprits we talk about - their portrait taken with Mikro Nikkor P-Auto 55/3.5