105 2.5 and 105 2.5

[Rvl]

I picked up a 105/2.5 for my S2
I was expecting it to be lighter and smaller than my 105/2.5 for my Nikon F

Thanks

Robert

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

same glass , same weight.

 

[Rvl]

really?
my guess would be 100gm difference

 

[raid]

Is there a weight difference between the two versions of the SLR 105/2.5?
Which one do you have? The Sonnar version or the later version?

 

[Rvl]

I have the Sonnar RF and SLR lenses
One is for the S2 and the other is for a F

 

[Rvl]

Looks to be RF lens is 510gm vs 435gm for the SLR

Interesting, i would have expected the SLR to be heavier

 

[Elektrojänis]

Interesting, i would have expected the SLR to be heavier

Why?

It's the same optics, so the RF-version needs a longer body/shell to get the optics as far from the film plane as the SLR version (because the RF-camera itself is). The glass weights the same. The longer body is heavier because it needs more material. The RF-version also probably needs one more helicoid for the RF-cam and that will add some weight too.

 

[dnk512]

What Elektrojänis said.
Rangefinders have the advantage with short/wide lenses. Once the focal length is long enough to allow space for a flip-mirror, there should not be any optical-design difference due to format of the body.

 

[VinceC]

The main difference is that the RF version uses an extraordinary amount of brass in the mount, possibly to overly protect the very large glass elements. There likely were complaints about the weight, because later designs of RF lenses and F-mount lenses are noticeably lighter.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

There is a lot of aluminum in the 105mm2.5 for F the RF lens is mostly brass, there is the diference. By the way the older 105mm for F has ball bearings in the aperture system. more or less works for ever...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It's the same optics, so the RF-version needs a longer body/shell to get the optics as far from the film plane as the SLR version (because the RF-camera itself is). The glass weights the same. The longer body is heavier because it needs more material. The RF-version also probably needs one more helicoid for the RF-cam and that will add some weight too.

Only the first SLR version is optically similar to the RF version. The lens was tweaked just a tiny bit to give it the extra few millimeters to clear the mirror box for proper registration when they computed the F mount version. That would be the F mount Nikkor P 105mm f/2.5. Could be labeled 10.5cm as well. The later AI and AIS lenses are completely different formulae and while they are wonderful performers, optically they share the focal length and the maximum aperture only as a cachet for marketing since the RF version and first generation P version of the lens were such hits.

Phil Forrest

 

[VinceC]

The 105 balances extremely well with an Nikon RF body. Both are about the same weight, and the lens is so robust that I usually carry it by the lens rather than by the camera body. The other saving grace of the excess mass is that it's very very easy to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. I have a lot of excellent shots taken in the 1/15 and 1/30 range with this lens. The past few years I've been carrying a CV 85/3.5 to save weight and be more pocketable, but the 105 is still one of the best lenses I've ever used.