Black Canon 100/2.0 vs Nikkor 105/2.5

[venchka]

If you had to pick one which would you choose? The black Canon 100/2.0 or the Nikkor 105/2.5? I have never used either lens. I did own the very early SLR version of the Nikkor 105 & loved it. There is a Canon 100/2.0 for sale in the classifieds and I have leads on the Nikkor. What to do? What to do?

What size filters does the Canon 100/2.0 use?

I have a black Canon 135 with caps, hood, auto-adjusting viewfinder, and case or a Canon VI-T body and meter for trade bait or to sell to fund another lens purchase.

 

[jlw]

I've owned both (the Nikkor in the past, the Canon presently) and they're both pretty darn fabulous.

The Canon has some practical advantages: it is a half-stop faster, has more equally spaced markings on the aperture ring, and is somewhat less front-heavy. One advantage of the Nikkor is that some versions have a built-in tripod socket, which can be very convenient.

Subjectively, I'd say that the Canon has slightly better detail sharpness and the Nikkor has slightly better "microcontrast," but the differences only amount to hairsplitting between two excellent-performing classic lenses.

I think the Canon takes 55mm filters, although I'd have to go home and look at mine to make sure.

Please PM me with info about your Canon 135 and VI-T; I don't want to trade my Canon 100/2, but would be interested to know what you're looking for in terms of cash offers.

 

[venchka]

Thanks. Please confirm the filter size on the Canon. Yikes! The Canon museum says 58mm. The Nikkor is 52mm I think.

I will PM you if/when I've had a chance to "sleep on" and maybe run another roll of film through the body+lens combination before making a decision.

 

[ferider]

Wayne, one of the biggest difference (for Portraits) is the close focus distance ... 1m for the Canon and 1.5m for the Nikkor.
You can do the Math ....

Roland.

 

[dberger]

The Canon 100 f2 does take 58 mm filters.

 

[furcafe]

I don't think I've ever made a direct comparison, & my results are skewed because my Canon is in much worse condition than any of my Nikkors, but my experience is similar to jlw's. FWIW, it's my understanding that the Nikkor is a Sonnar variant, though I have no idea of the Canon's design configuration, other than what's on the Canon Museum site (6 elements in 4 groups).

I think all the LTM versions of the Nikkor have the tripod socket, but I personally find them of limited utility because there's enough variation in LTM bodies & LTM-M adapters that the socket often ends up @ an angle, not parallel to the bottom of the camera. Another ergonomic quirk of both lenses is that the entire barrel rotates during focusing.

I've owned both (the Nikkor in the past, the Canon presently) and they're both pretty darn fabulous.

The Canon has some practical advantages: it is a half-stop faster, has more equally spaced markings on the aperture ring, and is somewhat less front-heavy. One advantage of the Nikkor is that some versions have a built-in tripod socket, which can be very convenient.

Subjectively, I'd say that the Canon has slightly better detail sharpness and the Nikkor has slightly better "microcontrast," but the differences only amount to hairsplitting between two excellent-performing classic lenses.

 

[Sonnar2]

I don't have a 2/100 Canon but the 1.8/85, which is a lot shorter and has very similar pictures charactics reported.
The Nikkor is very heavyweight and big when compared to it, slow focussing. The Canon is optimized for resolution, the Nikkor for contrast and has warmer color characteristics. The tripod socket is next to useless because of the angle it stops but can be removed. My Nikkor is for sale.
To be honest: I cannot understand why the Nikkor 2.5/105 always was so largely preferred over the 2/85 in the late 1950's. Maybe for the big, impressive look mostly. There isn't a huge difference in using a 85 or 105mm...

 

[jlw]

I think all the LTM versions of the Nikkor have the tripod socket, but I personally find them of limited utility because there's enough variation in LTM bodies & LTM-M adapters that the socket often ends up @ an angle, not parallel to the bottom of the camera.

If I recall correctly -- and remember, it's been a long time since I owned my 105/2.5 Nikkor -- I believe the screws that attach the tripod mount are in slots, so if you loosen them you can adjust the mount's position to some extent.

PS -- You guys were right about the Canon taking 58mm filters. Shows how good my memory is (or isn't)!

 

[venchka]

I passed some GAS

I passed some GAS

Thanks everyone! The Canon 100 is no longer listed. I guess someone got it. No worries. I'm over that lens for the moment. I have perfectly good 90mm and 135mm lenses that need using.

Cheers!

 

[VinceC]

The main advantage of the 100/105 focal length is that it can sort of do double duty for an 85 and 135. I carry the 85/135 combo when I really want the flexibility of a portrait lens plus the reach of a long telephoto. With a 28/85/135comination, you can genuinely photograph almost anything.

For just traveling around, I prefer carrying the 105. It handles portraits well and provides adequate reach/distance compression. But I do with it wasn't so heavy.

 

[raid]

Thanks everyone! The Canon 100 is no longer listed. I guess someone got it. No worries. I'm over that lens for the moment. I have perfectly good 90mm and 135mm lenses that need using.

Cheers!

venchka: I also had my GAS-inspired eyes on that same Canon 100mm lens, but in the end I was strong and I resisted buying it. I have five good medium tele lenses, so the Canon would have confused me.

Raid

 

[venchka]

Good Grief!

Good Grief!

venchka: I also had my GAS-inspired eyes on that same Canon 100mm lens, but in the end I was strong and I resisted buying it. I have five good medium tele lenses, so the Canon would have confused me.

Raid

I only have 3 , 75-90-135, and I'm always confused! 😀

Holding out for the 105 Nikkor I suppose.

 

[venchka]

Very intersting

Very intersting

...With a 28/85/135comination, you can genuinely photograph almost anything.

I can do that. 28-90-135. All from different makers too. 😱

 

[Roel]

For just traveling around, I prefer carrying the 105. It handles portraits well and provides adequate reach/distance compression. But I do with it wasn't so heavy.

Vince, so how heavy is this lens? (Heavier than the Canon 135mm 3.5 chrome?)