Steve M.
Veteran
Normally I shoot Leica R glass on Nikon cameras. After selling my R lenses, I decided to see if I might find something cheaper and looked at the early Nikon non AI lenses. They're quite the bargain. My first results w/ the 50 2.0 went better than expected. Not as good as a Leica R 50, but very nice.
Next I tried a non ai 105 2.5. The first roll was just to see if my N8008s was exposing correctly, and I really didn't look at the IQ. Today I looked closely at the 105 photos, and compared them to my earlier 90 R shots. The first 4 photos here are from the non ai 105 lens, the last 4 are from the Leica R 90. Same film (Kodak C41 B&W), same Walgreens processing, all shot w/ a hood. The Nikon's IQ isn't even close to the R 90, even though I cherry picked the best shots. Oh, it's sharp, but that's not what's important in a portrait lens. There's been essentially no editing, but the R 90 shots show some camera shake due to slow shutter speeds. Did I get a poor 105 sample? No, because I found the shots from an earlier non ai 105 I once owned (and decided not to keep) last year.
Sometimes you get what you pay for, but not always. And if you get a great lens, keep it. My Nikon non ai 50 2.0 lens is a keeper, the 105 isn't up to snuff, so I'm just going to buy another R 90 lens. They're worth the extra money.
Next I tried a non ai 105 2.5. The first roll was just to see if my N8008s was exposing correctly, and I really didn't look at the IQ. Today I looked closely at the 105 photos, and compared them to my earlier 90 R shots. The first 4 photos here are from the non ai 105 lens, the last 4 are from the Leica R 90. Same film (Kodak C41 B&W), same Walgreens processing, all shot w/ a hood. The Nikon's IQ isn't even close to the R 90, even though I cherry picked the best shots. Oh, it's sharp, but that's not what's important in a portrait lens. There's been essentially no editing, but the R 90 shots show some camera shake due to slow shutter speeds. Did I get a poor 105 sample? No, because I found the shots from an earlier non ai 105 I once owned (and decided not to keep) last year.
Sometimes you get what you pay for, but not always. And if you get a great lens, keep it. My Nikon non ai 50 2.0 lens is a keeper, the 105 isn't up to snuff, so I'm just going to buy another R 90 lens. They're worth the extra money.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Hard to do "apples to apples" here, but I don't see the difference in IQ. I would also note that the R 90/2 costs -- how much?? Compared with a pre-AI 105/2.5 that's perhaps 1/4 the price. What is the age of the two lenses? The Nikkor would be at least 35 years old; I'm not even sure the Leica 90/2 was made then. Frankly, comparing the 90/2 with the Nikkor 105/1.8 would be a more appropriate test, or compare the 105/2.5 with a late 90s 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit.
dave lackey
Veteran
Ah, Steve...you learned a good lesson. Crons are very, very good lenses.
The so-called IQ (I prefer to look at character of lenses), is evident in images 5, 6, 7...I don't what's up with the last one.
Loving my 50 Cron...can't wait until one day I can get that 80 Lux. And the 50 Lux. And the 35 Lux.
The so-called IQ (I prefer to look at character of lenses), is evident in images 5, 6, 7...I don't what's up with the last one.
Loving my 50 Cron...can't wait until one day I can get that 80 Lux. And the 50 Lux. And the 35 Lux.
Shac
Well-known
I've done a similar comparison to you Steve and came to exactly the same conclusion. However, I was comparing V2 of the 90 Elmarit (Leitax converted) with AI and AIS 105/2.5 Nikkors - I used a D700 for all lenses and same subjects at the same time
mdarnton
Well-known
Don't see any difference at all: bad all around. If you can see a difference in relatively low res internet pix, something is wrong, somewhere, and it's probably not the lens. I'd start by blaming the scans in this case: they're really poor, all other things aside: way too light, and lacking any tonality at all.
Anyone who sees anything here is smoking extra-strength Leica placebo.
Anyone who sees anything here is smoking extra-strength Leica placebo.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I can't see any difference either, other than that the pictures were taken at various distances and apertures, and that some (with both lenses) were not in critical focus.
ampguy
Veteran
Steve, upgrade from Walgreens to Costco. Seriously.
redisburning
Well-known
I suggest looking at the negatives with a loupe or use a digital camera and live view to evaluate.
but, and this is a sample size of 2, I tested my Nikkor 105/1.8 against a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 at 10 feet;
the 105 was what I would call "quality sufficient"; that is to say that it is sharper than really necessary for it's intended purpose.
The Vivitar still crushed it at 100%
At 1024 I doubt you could tell there was any difference if I was able to match the colors up. It's like the difference between the speed of light through a vacuum and through water; real if you're looking for it, inconsequential otherwise.
the 105/2.5 is a good lens, but as always it's possible to get a less than stellar copy or to like another lens a lot better. Leica is not Nikon; if they were I could probably save a lot of money on my RF lenses.
but, and this is a sample size of 2, I tested my Nikkor 105/1.8 against a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 at 10 feet;
the 105 was what I would call "quality sufficient"; that is to say that it is sharper than really necessary for it's intended purpose.
The Vivitar still crushed it at 100%
At 1024 I doubt you could tell there was any difference if I was able to match the colors up. It's like the difference between the speed of light through a vacuum and through water; real if you're looking for it, inconsequential otherwise.
the 105/2.5 is a good lens, but as always it's possible to get a less than stellar copy or to like another lens a lot better. Leica is not Nikon; if they were I could probably save a lot of money on my RF lenses.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Steve, i see no evidence here one way or the other. i suspect the "Leica" mystique may be affecting things here. I suggest a more controlled comparison using same portrait sitting session, camera on tripod, etc.. Then let's have another look, as I'm interested in this comparison. And would it be possible to do the comparison with color film as well? And in the same sitting session, could you do the same comparison using the 50mm lenses? Thanks for passing along this information... much appreciated!
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
The actual corresponding lens to a 90mm f/2 would be a Nikkor 85mm f/2 or older f/1.8. There is a surprisingly large difference between the two focal lengths (85/90 and 105). For example, in SLR I strongly prefer an 85/90 supplemented by a 135 or 200. The 105 is much more of a compromise between short and long telephotos. The optics of the Nikon 105/2.5 were developed in the early 1950s. In the mid-1970s the lens was recomputed to heighten sharpness and rendering at close focus (the later version was used by Steve McCurry in 1984 to take the iconic National Geographic photograph of Sharbat Gula, the Afghan girl with green eyes).
BobYIL
Well-known
I have the Summicron-R 90 3-cam late version and two 105/2.5 Nikkors, one is the P.C. which is regarded highly by some and the AIS, using them since years with film and recently tested also on the Nex-5N. The color rendition between the 'cron and Nikkors is apparent under all circumstances.
Sharpness: On color film hard to detect any resolution difference other than contrast, the 'cron exhibits a tad more microcontrast (crispness). On B&W film? I doubt anybody can detect them, for such differences could easily be construed due to development.
However on the digital (APS-C) such small nuances become more apparent: Tested @f2.8 and f5.6: Summicron is slightly sharper toward the edges if you pixel peep!; otherwise no noticable difference.
Shortly: Both of these lenses are the masterpieces of their brands. For color film: it's a matter of taste to choose which one. Those loving warmer colors should go with the Nikkors. And the bokeh of the 105/2.5 is a class of its own. For B&W: Listen to what your purse says.
Sharpness: On color film hard to detect any resolution difference other than contrast, the 'cron exhibits a tad more microcontrast (crispness). On B&W film? I doubt anybody can detect them, for such differences could easily be construed due to development.
However on the digital (APS-C) such small nuances become more apparent: Tested @f2.8 and f5.6: Summicron is slightly sharper toward the edges if you pixel peep!; otherwise no noticable difference.
Shortly: Both of these lenses are the masterpieces of their brands. For color film: it's a matter of taste to choose which one. Those loving warmer colors should go with the Nikkors. And the bokeh of the 105/2.5 is a class of its own. For B&W: Listen to what your purse says.
Turtle
Veteran
Steve, in all honesty, I'd tackle the image processing first. These B&W images have some major issues and look pretty horrendous. I'd tackle these issues well before worrying about lenses. I know it sounds harsh, but if your goal is to make good B&W images, this is the first area to work on.
Spicy
Well-known
ITT:
Level of importance of getting a good picture:
Technique >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equipment
Level of importance of getting a good picture:
Technique >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equipment
Ruhayat
Well-known
I concur, through personal experience. That's why I find my 50mm Summicron R to be a "boring" lens: it's so well behaved and predictable! On colour photos there's just that crispness and tonal uniformity that you take for granted after a while. I find the same characteristic in my 90mm Cron M, as well.
So for people shots I now favour the Zeiss Planar f1.7... it has a bit more character between f1.7-f2.8, and a similar crisp signature when stopped further down. And I got a couple of Russian Sonnars for the longer lengths. But for general shooting, nothing beats a 'Cron in my book.
I don't think it's the "Leica mystique": I bought the 50mm Cron R 5 years ago when secondhand R lenses cost just a little more than equivalent Nikkors, and the signature was readily apparent. The prices have really gone off the chart now.
So for people shots I now favour the Zeiss Planar f1.7... it has a bit more character between f1.7-f2.8, and a similar crisp signature when stopped further down. And I got a couple of Russian Sonnars for the longer lengths. But for general shooting, nothing beats a 'Cron in my book.
I don't think it's the "Leica mystique": I bought the 50mm Cron R 5 years ago when secondhand R lenses cost just a little more than equivalent Nikkors, and the signature was readily apparent. The prices have really gone off the chart now.
Sparrow
Veteran
I think it's probably the subjects that are the problem, no amount of lens quality will resurrect a mediocre photo ...
AIS 2.5/105
AIS 2.5/105
Ronny
Well-known
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
How to tell which is which? The "Congo River" one I could believe is a Leica lens. Is it?
Platinum RF
Well-known
The Nikon 105mm images look terrific to me, I am not sure where do you get the conclusion. I have both of these lenses including others. 105mm is a great lens, period. 80mm f1.4 at 1.4 is very soft, great for old lady, 35mm f1.4-R is difficult to control due to shallow depth of filed.
The conclusion in here: you have not prove one way or other.
The conclusion in here: you have not prove one way or other.
bigeye
Well-known
I believe that the pre-AI and AI lenses are different.
.
.
yossarian123
Sam I Am
The main differences are between pre-AI versions when it went from a sonnar to a double gauss configuration. After that, subsequent versions didn't change. There are also the versions that went from single- to multi-coated (P to PC). I have an AIS, pre-AI P.C, and sonnar type pre-AI (single coat). To my eyes the differences in IQ are negligible.