10,5 mm Nikon rangefinder lens

VinceC said:
Recently, my travel combo has been 28/3.5; 35/1.8; 50/1.4; 105/2.5. The 35 is mainly for low-light work, when the 28 is just too slow. I like the CV 25/4 very much, but I'm not fond of separate finders.
Click to expand...

My upcoming trip may result in me taking a similar set of lenses. I may replace the 28/3.5 with a 28/2.8 or a 25/4.
 
raid said:
The Nikkor -PC is a Gauss design that was started after 1972, whereas the P version was a Sonnar design.
Click to expand...

Hi Raid, I'm pretty sure the red C of the P-C on the lens (as you can see in the photo below) indicates that its coated. No doubt there is some kind of mark that distinguishes the Sonnar design 105/2.5 from the Gauss design 105/2.5 though. Anyone?

Nikon1059+.jpg
 
The Gauss design was for the SLR version only, and started with the 105mm F2.5 P.C. lens introduced ~1973 or so. Nikon quit using the "C" suffix at the end of the RF era when most lenses were assumed to be coated. They re-introduced the suffix when they started multi-coating all of the elements of a lens. The change-over from the Sonnar formula 105 to Gauss coincided with the practice of Multicoating. I'm not sure if there were any single-coated Gauss lenses or Multi-coated Sonnar lenses.
 
Here are two variations of 105/2.5, the left one is S mount, the right one is a Leica thread mount lens (with an M mount adapter) that I got from ferider.

The serial number of the LTM lens is later than that of the S mount, but the lettering on the front of the S mount lens looks different/later vintage.

The S mount has a black ring/semi-shade, and the hood says simply 'Japan.' The LTM hood says 10.5cm f/2.5 and has the NK logo.

105s.jpg
105s2.jpg
 
I'll go against the tide a little, here. Ive always found the 10.5cm/2.5 Nikkor-P to be a fine performer & all, but it's a little too slow to be my favorite short telephoto. It's already big & heavy enough that I wonder whether it would really have been much bigger if Nikon had decided to go for f/2.
 
I find the heft of the 10.5cm makes it well-balanced, and relatively easy to hand-hold without motion. Not sure how much bigger it would have been to reach f/2.0; besides, that's what the 8.5cm/2.0 is for. :)
 
digitalintrigue said:
I find the heft of the 10.5cm makes it well-balanced, and relatively easy to hand-hold without motion. Not sure how much bigger it would have been to reach f/2.0; besides, that's what the 8.5cm/2.0 is for. :)
Click to expand...

I agree with you;the 85mm/2 is not to large or heavy but the 105mm/2.5 is large enough. This makes me suspect that the 105/2 for RFF would be even larger and heavier. The SLR 105/2 is large and heavy, isn't it.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the 105/2 AF lens. The 105/1.8 was the manual focus lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/105mm-f18/DSC_9189-950.jpg




"The 105mm f/1.8 has a 9-bladed diaphragm, has a built-in telescoping hood, and takes 62mm filters.

It has five elements in five groups.

Close focus is 3 feet or 1m.

It is 3.1" (78mm) around by 3.5" (88mm) long and weighs 20 oz (580g)."


The weight is 580g,and this is quite a lot. If a RF version of this lens wieghs this much, it would be too heavy for a RF lens.
 
This page indicates 525g. I doubt the 105/1.8 has any brass content like the 1950s lenses. Also, note the weight reduction progression in the 135/3.5.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Canon SLR 100/2 takes a 58mm filter and weighs 16 ounces/460g -- that's with a modern lens. If you used the brass and chrome of 1950s Nikkor construction quality, it would have jumped a lot higher. The RF Nikkor 105/2.5 weighs about 500g.
 
VinceC said:
The Canon SLR 100/2 takes a 58mm filter and weighs 16 ounces/460g -- that's with a modern lens. If you used the brass and chrome of 1950s Nikkor construction quality, it would have jumped a lot higher. The RF Nikkor 105/2.5 weighs about 500g.
Click to expand...

Vince,

Usually, AF lenses are lighter than their manual focus counterparts. Maybe that's why the 105/2 has as weight 500 grams.
 
Raid,
the 105 f2.5 in RF mount weighs 525 grams
the 105 f2.5 in SLR mount weighs 435 grams
the 105 f1.8 Ais weighs 580 grams
I have the 105 f2.0 Defocus control lens, it's the heaviest @ 640 grams

Kiu
 
Last edited:
I have the 105 f/2.5 in Contax mount that I use with my IIa. Getting the Nikon BL finder was a pain and cost me $300 when I found one. Great lens.

I also have the black 85mm f/2 in Nikon mount that I use with my SP. Great lens.

I use them both. The 85 is easier to use with the SP viewfinder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom