Which Nikon 105 2.5???

ampguy said:
I'll post some of my F mount 105/2.5 photos. They make the Sonnar version look like Holga lenses.
Click to expand...

Right.

afghan-girl-portrait_1563_990x742.jpg


:)
 
I have both. The 10.5cm Nikkor-P (sonnar) is a fine lens and contributed to the making of Nikon's early reputation in glass. It is softer. Sometimes that's nice. But I will stand and testify that the 105./2.5 Gauss (I have the Ai but would love the AIS for its shorter focus throw and hood) is one of the three or four finest lenses I've ever used. (Some others? Zeiss 50/1.5 and 50/2 sonnars, Zeiss 50/1.4 planar for C/Y mount, 85/1.8 Takumar, Nikon 180/2.8 ED, the humble but astonishing Rokkor-X 24/2.8, and, ok, a couple of Leicas which I can't afford to own.) It just bowls me over sometimes, the look it gets. And the colors. And the sharpness. And the bokeh. So I'd go with the AIS, a clean copy (pay more if you possibly can) and you will never ever regret it.
 
That picture above, Afghani Girl, was taken by Steve Mc-whatsis with the AIS version, on an FM2n.
Edit: On Kodachrome, sigh.
 
sparrow6224 said:
(I have the Ai but would love the AIS for its shorter focus throw and hood)
Click to expand...
Were I not so cack-handed, I'd take a hacksaw to my AIS version's hood. It doesn't lock in place when extended and the slightest touch knocks it crooked. Mine now sports an HS-8 hood at all times.

In every other respect, though, it's a superb lens.
 
That famous portrait of the gal is actually sharper than I like for a portrait lens, but I have no way of knowing if he shot it wide open or stopped down a little. If I had shot it I'd say I'd blown the focus too, because the eyes and face look a little softish, yet the surrounding clothes look sharp as a tack. Maybe that's the look he was after though. Who knows what happened in post processing as well.

Not to take anything away from someone who is obviously a wonderful photographer, but that shot is a bit of a ringer. With a film like Kodachrome and that particular subject, a Holga probably would have produced a great image.
 
sparrow6224 said:
That picture above, Afghani Girl, was taken by Steve Mc-whatsis with the AIS version, on an FM2n.
Edit: On Kodachrome, sigh.
Click to expand...

"Steve McCurry"; and you don't know if he used the AIS version or a late AI-converted Sonnar :).

Steve, my personal advice is to pick any version and base your purchase decision on price and condition ....
 
You want not-sharp, spend your money on a nice sharp lens, keep a UV filter on it, and then rub some nose grease on the filter when you want it to not be sharp. I'm serious. That's the way diffusion filters used to be rigged up from nothing, and it's still good. You also have the option of rubbing it around the edges, so you have a sharp core to the image, with a diffuse halo.

You can always make a sharp lens less sharp, but you can never go in the other direction.

More options: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-72921.html

Also, "soft" filters. . . . cheap on Ebay.
 
I love my AIS version. Possibly the sharpest lens I have next to my 55mm f3.5 micro-nikkor. It's too sharp sometimes for portraiture.
 
On the drooping hood issue, this was driving me crazy, and tonight I decided to try to fix it. I got pretty good results by shoving a thin plastic card with sharp edges in under the hood from the back, and spinning the hood in various ways, trying to catch the felt inside the hood with the card's edge . It seems to have fluffed up the stuff that's supposed to hold the hood in place quite well. We'll see if it lasts, though. Right now my hood's clicking into place nicely.
 
OK, I finally bought something. Found what I sincerely hope is a Bgn grade 5 element, 4 group 105 2.5 non AI lens from KEH for $72 plus shipping. Judging from their little stock photo, and looking at all of the links everyone was nice enough to provide here, I think I have the right one. It's the one w/ the thicker scalloped black focus ring and the aperture ring that goes to f32. I'm pretty sure the early silver 5 element, 3 group lens only went to f22.

After going through all this, I finally managed to find the scans from the early 105 2.5 I once owned. Indoors it looks very good indeed. The problems seemed to occur when shooting portraits outside in bright New Mexico sun.

Well, it's on the way, so we'll see. Wish I had ordered a little more stuff though so I could have taken advantage of their free shipping on orders over $100.
 
The cat shot is very nice. Of course, I'm a cat person, so that helps :)

That's a good question on the 85 2.0 vs the 105. I've never owned one, but have owned a few 85 1.8 AF lenses. I thought they were very good, but not as good as the 105 shots I've seen. 85 is on the edge of being too short for a portrait lens for my own shooting.

Here's one of my cat shots w/ the 105 2.5 I used to own. Maybe it was better than I remembered, because it looks close to Leica R sharp in this photo.

SteveMarino_09a43e472367.jpg
 
A few comments

I have the old Sonnar design 105mm and think its lovely. The lens is certainly sharp enough but as with all Sonnars it's got that sharp / rounded / soft quality that is so nice for portraits. Its optimised for closer shooting - ie portraits. And I love the bokeh which has that oh so soft look.

The new model ( a gauss I think) is said to be sharper (I do not own one) and more optimised as a distance lens. (I think this may be a characteristic of this design). Gauss tend to have a more "clinical" look to their images by reputation and from what I have seen.

Overall I like the look of my lenses and am happy to stick with it - even though it looks a bit antiquated stuck on the front of a D200. (although one day I will weakena dn end up with the AIS version too.)

Out of curiosity I recently bought an 85mm f2 (someone raised this below as an option) While its sometimes said this is not as good as the 85mm f1.8 this is not my experience. So far its turned out to be a bloody sharp lens that I enjoy using.

So I think you work out what you want the lens for and what your rpeferences are in look and then buy accordingly as they are all excellent variations on a theme.
 
ampguy said:
My 105/2.5 P*C works great on my D40x, is there something on the D100 that blocks the fitting of the lens or something?

I mean there's no AF, the 105/2.5 (older ones at least) are MF.
Click to expand...

Hi Ted,

The D40/D40x/D60 mounts are a little different from the D100. On Non-ai Nikkor lenses, the aperture ring ridge protrudes farther than the lens mount's bayonets, and will cause aperture ring binding and probable damage on the D100 and some other bodies.

Warren
 
ampguy said:
Here's a photo taken recently with about 4 year expired Fuji 400 Superia film (used at 200), processed at Costco. [...] Never have seen a Sonnar lens as sharp, or accurate reproduction, especially wrt color accuracy:
Click to expand...

It seems to me that "4 year expired Fuji 400 Superia film (used at 200), processed at Costco" and "accurate reproduction, especially wrt color accuracy" are mutually exclusive. It's a nice cat, but nothing by which to judge a lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top