Nikkor 105/2.5 (Nikkor RF mount)

Of all the Nikon Rf and SLR lenses made - my favorite is the 105f2.5. It is one of the perfect portrait lenses and also works very well as a "long" lens for picking out details in a crowd. Even more than 50 years later, it can hold its own. Big and heavy yes - but it is worth it. I usually couple it with a fast 50 and a moderate wide angle as a "tripac".
At 2,5 it has just the right "softening" of details to be appealing, but once you have stopped it down to 5.6 it is sharp and not too contrasty.
 
In my experience, the Nikkor 105 is contrasty -- perhaps a little too contrasty -- unlike the various 100mm lenses made by Canon for RFs and SLRs, which I have found to be fully as sharp.
 
Everyone has his/her own preference, but I find the contrast/sharpness of the Nikkor 10.5cm/2.5 to be a perfect balance. I never warmed to this lens in SLR, but a surprising number of my RF "keepers" have been taken with it.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 105-soccer-05-may06.jpg
    105-soccer-05-may06.jpg
    30.8 KB · Views: 3
  • 105-indyhat-jan09.jpg
    105-indyhat-jan09.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 3
There is a rare version of the RF lens - the 105f4. Interesting piece of glass and tiny compared to the 105f2.5. Last year i managed to get one through Stephen Gandy and it is quite impressive, though a bit slow. Cant wait for consistent sun to do some more shooting with it.
 
Tom A said:
There is a rare version of the RF lens - the 105f4. Interesting piece of glass and tiny compared to the 105f2.5. Last year i managed to get one through Stephen Gandy and it is quite impressive, though a bit slow. Cant wait for consistent sun to do some more shooting with it.
Click to expand...

i used 135/3.5 before and i found it not fast enough. i think same will goes to 105/4.
We need the SUN to help us a little.:)
 
I have a 105/2.5 in LTM and in F mounts. Neither is bitingly sharp wide open, but just right for street / portraiture.

For people photography, I prefer them to my other 105mm, a Kiron 105/2.8 in F mount, which is so incredibly sharp that I can see every pore (and every blemish) on a person's face.
 
I have both chrome and black 85/2 and got the black for the lower weight. The chrome still is lighter than the 105/2.5

I don't really have a need for biting sharpness and do most of my portraits as close to wide open as possible.
 
gohaj said:
i used 135/3.5 before and i found it not fast enough. i think same will goes to 105/4.
We need the SUN to help us a little.:)
Click to expand...

My 13.5cm lens arrived today. What a tiny little thing! I'd almost say it's cute. I can't wait to give it a try on my M3 using Amedeo's adapter.

Vince--that soccer picture is great. I was actually thinking of taking one of my RFer cameras ( 7 with .95 ) to a HS basketball game tonight, but decided not to. By the time I got the patch lined up the moment would be gone!
 
>> By the time I got the patch lined up the moment would be gone!<<

With practice, I find that "follow focus" with a rangefinder isn't really any harder than with an SLR. You just keep the two images lined up. However, the Nikons have lifesize viewfinders, so it's easier to do this while paying attention to the actual action.

Alas, the following year my soccer star moved to a larger field, surpassing the reach of 105 and 135mm lenses.

The 13.5cm Nikkor is really a great lens. (For that matter, most manufacturers 135s were great ... it's just a challenging focal length for RF cameras, expecially those with reduced-image finders.
 
VinceC said:
>> By the time I got the patch lined up the moment would be gone!<<

With practice, I find that "follow focus" with a rangefinder isn't really any harder than with an SLR. You just keep the two images lined up. However, the Nikons have lifesize viewfinders, so it's easier to do this while paying attention to the actual action.

Alas, the following year my soccer star moved to a larger field, surpassing the reach of 105 and 135mm lenses.

The 13.5cm Nikkor is really a great lens. (For that matter, most manufacturers 135s were great ... it's just a challenging focal length for RF cameras, expecially those with reduced-image finders.
Click to expand...

Vince, I just read about your paper days and how you threw out your back and eventually went to RFers. You must have had plenty of practice to anticipate the moment when to take the shot. Sadly, the one time I did use a film camera to shoot someone in sports I had too short of a lens. It was a hurlder going over the last hurlde and I was using a F2 and 105/2.5. Got the shot though. I have another chance to use the 7 and .95 Tuesday. Regionals for our local team and I shoot alot with a dslr, but film could make things interesting.

Sorry for going off topic OP. I did have a 105/2.5 for Nikon RFer and I thought that was one of the nicest lenses I ever owned. So well built and took such nice photos. Someone told me I'd regret selling it and I do.
 
It obviously makes a lot of sense to shoot sports with SLRs. When my kids moved to bigger soccer fields and I loaded up an F2 with film and a 200mm lens, I realized I hadn't run film through an SLR in several years. (And, way off topic, I rediscovered what an undiscovered gem the 200/4 AIS lens can be).

The mass of the RF version of the 10.5cm/2.5 can be an advantage. The lens is very well balanced with a camera body, and I usually carry the combo by the lens instead of by the body. Because of the mass, it's easy to handhold at 1/30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom