jdriffill
Established
The test shots look great. Did you establish whether your lens is early enough and has the same optics as the RF version, or is the later planar-type (5/4) formula?
The size and shape of the rear lens surface distinguishes them quite clearly. The RF version has a smaller diameter and is flat (or at least very nearly flat) whereas the later F mount version is larger diameter and convex.
As Rance Eric has the RF lens, and you have an F-mount version, you'll have ample opportunity to compare their performance.
All the best, John
The size and shape of the rear lens surface distinguishes them quite clearly. The RF version has a smaller diameter and is flat (or at least very nearly flat) whereas the later F mount version is larger diameter and convex.
As Rance Eric has the RF lens, and you have an F-mount version, you'll have ample opportunity to compare their performance.
Won't argue with that.
All the best, John
Last edited:
peterm1
Mentor
HI all. I read the other post (the one that went feral on Flicker. ) WOW! Some people are just weird.
Now someone may have already posted this (I have not read all of this thread.) But as to MC JC86 's question about serial numbers this may help.
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
Its a great resource for Nikkor lens info. Click on the link for each lens type and it will take you to a page with more info inclusing photos of that variant.
On refelction you should also go here - Lots and lots and lots of Nikon and Nikkor info.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/index.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/105mmnikkor/index.htm (Almost at the bottom of this page you will find links to lots of variants of the 105)
I own an early chrome barrelled sonnar version of the 105 Nikkor that has been AI'd and use it with my D200. I love it. While its technically not as sharp as the lens design that came later it has nice "rounded" rendering".....That "sharp yet soft" look that Sonnar lenses can be so good at. And its bokeh is sublime.
Now someone may have already posted this (I have not read all of this thread.) But as to MC JC86 's question about serial numbers this may help.
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
Its a great resource for Nikkor lens info. Click on the link for each lens type and it will take you to a page with more info inclusing photos of that variant.
On refelction you should also go here - Lots and lots and lots of Nikon and Nikkor info.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/index.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/105mmnikkor/index.htm (Almost at the bottom of this page you will find links to lots of variants of the 105)
I own an early chrome barrelled sonnar version of the 105 Nikkor that has been AI'd and use it with my D200. I love it. While its technically not as sharp as the lens design that came later it has nice "rounded" rendering".....That "sharp yet soft" look that Sonnar lenses can be so good at. And its bokeh is sublime.
Last edited:
Ronald M
Mentor
Later Gauss design has a rear element that fills the mount areas. Sonar version rear element is around half that size. All other differences are cosmetic or mechanical.
The Gauss is better in very close range at 2.8. Other than that, the pics are same.
The Gauss is better in very close range at 2.8. Other than that, the pics are same.
ray*j*gun
Mentor
Thanks Peter great resources!!
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
It's the Sonnar version, was $69 on KEH. The pictures I took with it and posted here were done with a KEH sourced black Nikon F2 which was $45. I love that film is dead.
jdriffill
Established
You are very fortunate. What great bargains! I should look at KEH more often. Locally (i.e., in and around London) these things cost a lot more as a rule.
All the best, John
puderse
Established
2.5/105
2.5/105
Back when Ektachrome was only 3 I was a still photographer for the Army. I purchased a couple of Fs and one of my first lenses was the 2.5/105. I still shoot it on the original cameras and some later bodies. The best lens I ever used. P, P-C, PC or whatever.
2.5/105
Back when Ektachrome was only 3 I was a still photographer for the Army. I purchased a couple of Fs and one of my first lenses was the 2.5/105. I still shoot it on the original cameras and some later bodies. The best lens I ever used. P, P-C, PC or whatever.
M Currie
Member
I have never had the earlier Sonnar version for comparison, but I have the first generation of the pre-AI Gauss version, single coated, fluted focus ring, etc. The Sonnar may be better, but I don't know how it could be much better unless it does your laundry or something.
mnutzer
no title
Nikkor PC 2.5-105mm ltm on Leica IIIa syn
richardHaw
junk scavenger
tried and used every version of that lens (except tickmark) and all I can say is that they perform very much the same for general use. the Sonnar is my preferred version although the later "Gauss" version should be better because of the flatter field. this lens family is something special. I am writing a series on that lens family in my Nikon blog, from the RF version to the last.
