Nikkor 105mm f2.5 confusion

[dtcls100]

Nikon 105 f2.0 DC

Nikon 105 f2.0 DC

Bought this lens recently on RF. Absolutely fantastic image quality. Extremely sharp but with beautiful bokeh even without using Defocus control. Great construction for AF lens and great for MF too. A bit large but quite light for size.

 

[ferider]

I have the 10.5/2.5 Sonnar in LTM, the 105/2.5 AI, and the Micro 105/2.8 AIs lens.

The Sonnar (for me) is great for portraits, but seems a bit soft for landscapes (at least around f4 or f5.6). Here is a typical 10.5/2.5 Sonnar portrait (using an M3):

The AI lens is a good performer, and probably the best match to the OP's modern Summicron. The Micro 105/2.8 (see also, for instance http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/105mmicrof28.htm) is an amazing performer. Gets rarely mentioned due to the hype around the 105/2.5 though.

Roland.

 

[Dwig]

... A follow up question if I may. I am working on a Black and White film project that originally was shot with a Leica M3 and a 50mm Summicron (latest version). As I continue the project, without that Leica camera and lens, and with the addition of shooting some portraits with a short telephoto lens, I am trying to determine which Nikkor 105 is going to give me the best B&W portraiture, and hopefully not be too far from the look I got with the Leica combo. ...

If there is a noticeable difference then I would think that the newer Planar-derived 105 would be the better choice given that the Summicron is a Planar-like design.

Both versions of the 105 are excellent. Some like the "quirky" Sonnar bokeh. I, for one, don't. Give me the smoother bokeh from a Planar design any day.

 

[redisburning]

well, in theory a mandler era 90 summicron that is leitaxed to F mount would definitely be the best way to go to match a v5 summicron.

 

[Mark C]

All are great lenses, but I have to agree that the later design is better in every way lenses are usually evaluated, including bokeh.

I've used these off and on since the F2 days, so when I happened to have the Sonnar version, the early Planar version, and the AI around all at the same time about two years ago, I took that opportunity to do some comparisons. I've heard a lot of internet buzz, so was ready to be wowed with the Sonnarishness of the early one, but just couldn't find anything it did better than the later ones, except slightly less sharpness and contrast if that is what you are looking for.

I do want to repeat though, they were all great. I especially wouldn't bother trading up if mostly shooting people pictures, which is likely the most common use for these. For other shots, like buildings and urban scenes, the difference was noticeable to me.

Objectively the AI was the best, but I liked the look of the original Planar model that I'd already owned for a while just as well, so kept that and traded off the AI and sold the Sonnar.

On the idea of fitting in with images from the 50 Summicron, I hadn't had my 105 out for a while, but while looking for something that could make up for the loss of my R mount 90 Summicron, I was a bit surprised to find this early Planar version was my favorite of the several 85-105 lens I had. It has the most Leica'ish look of any Nikkor I've used.

 

[Corran]

I've always been perplexed by the varying and totally inconsistent remarks on these lenses.

Interestingly, I have a 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor for my Nikon SP rangefinder, an F-mount 10.5cm f/2.5 Sonnar model with the 9-bladed aperture, and a 105mm f/2.5 Gauss pre-AI "P.C." version. Maybe I should put these all on a tripod and do a head-to-head comparison for sharpness, bokeh, and rendering?

Off-hand I think the Gauss design is sharper but the Sonnar version has better OOF rendering. Which is exactly what Nikon says in their design literature.

 

[Mark C]

I haven't seen a lot of inconsistency in remarks myself; everybody seems very happy with every version of this lens.

Let us know what your comparison shows.

 

[ampguy]

The 500K - 571K s/n is the one to get if you want the P*C SLR version.

 

[Corran]

Mark - you're right that everyone likes this lens in any version, but which is supposedly "better" with regard to certain characteristics is another matter! 🙂

I will definitely put this on my to-do list.

 

[venchka]

I've always been perplexed by the varying and totally inconsistent remarks on these lenses.

Interestingly, I have a 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor for my Nikon SP rangefinder, an F-mount 10.5cm f/2.5 Sonnar model with the 9-bladed aperture, and a 105mm f/2.5 Gauss pre-AI "P.C." version. Maybe I should put these all on a tripod and do a head-to-head comparison for sharpness, bokeh, and rendering?

Off-hand I think the Gauss design is sharper but the Sonnar version has better OOF rendering. Which is exactly what Nikon says in their design literature.

Mark - you're right that everyone likes this lens in any version, but which is supposedly "better" with regard to certain characteristics is another matter! 🙂

I will definitely put this on my to-do list.

The early rangefinder model (all camera mounts) and the first F mount SLR model are the same lens optically.
"Better" is a subjective term. Given the multi-variable nature of photographic optics, each user will have his or her own set of "better" characteristics. All of which makes internet questions with words like "best", "better", "good, "bad", "ugly", etc. invariably yield a single answer, "It depends."
Suffice to say, the Nikkor 105mm focal length lenses, in all of their incarnations and variations, have a large and enthusiastic following.
YMMV.

Wayne

 

[Mark C]

Yes, very nearly identical optics and no effective difference in performance. Apparently they had to increase the back focus by 1mm to allow for mirror clearance on the F.

All versions are indeed nice. For me, the redesigned version is absolutely stunning, and the closest to a classic Leica look I've seen in Nikon lenses. I will fess up here and say that I do very slightly prefer the pre-multicoated version for its slightly smoother look.

One of these links appeared earlier, but I think not both so I'll post them:
Sonnar version - section 3 talks about the slight mod needed to fit the F.
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/45/index.htm

The modern version:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/5/index.htm

And the 8.5cm f2 for some more interesting background:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/36/index.htm

 

[Stuart John]

I've got the silver nosed Sonnar version. I'm very pleased with it.

 

[kshapero]

This might also help.

http://www.cameraquest.com/aidaiais.htm

 

[Sparrow]

... the lesser ais version is just about passable

 

[Corran]

The early rangefinder model (all camera mounts) and the first F mount SLR model are the same lens optically.
"Better" is a subjective term. Given the multi-variable nature of photographic optics, each user will have his or her own set of "better" characteristics. All of which makes internet questions with words like "best", "better", "good, "bad", "ugly", etc. invariably yield a single answer, "It depends."
Suffice to say, the Nikkor 105mm focal length lenses, in all of their incarnations and variations, have a large and enthusiastic following.
YMMV.

Wayne

Quite right, but there is a difference in the aperture blades (10 vs. 9) between the RF and SLR. Might not make a difference, but wouldn't hurt to try, no? Anyway, still need to do this test when the weather gets better.

However I did shoot this portrait yesterday with the AI'd 10.5cm Sonnar on my D800E:

 

[Mark C]

You guys are putting this lens back in my mind. The trouble is I just don't use the focal length much, though I used to need that a lot for work stuff. Even 85/90 is usually a touch long for my personal shooting.

I did take the Nikkor out yesterday and found some stuff to shoot. Then last night decided to try some indoor available light (where I would usually shoot) and took my three lenses in that range. It was fun and somewhat enlightening already even though I've only looked at the negs. I'm about to make a few prints.

Corran, a D800E would sure be handy for making quick work of a comparision. I end up shooting quite a lot of film (4 rolls last night) to ensure fair comparisons since I can't tell anything until I see the negs. Live view would be nice; I still had to shoot some further test today since one of the lenses last night gave me focus issues (and has before). That took another roll in each of 2 bodies to eliminate variables. Now I'm waiting for the film to dry. I don't really mind, but all that would have been pretty easy with a full frame digital.

BTW, is that the lens you'd normally use for that picture (meaning the Sonnar version)? Are you happy with the result?

 

[Steve M.]

Both the early and late designs are sharp as a tack. The later was optimized for portraits to my understanding. I've owned both designs and found them too sharp for portraits. Nice walk around lenses, and cheap too, but I have a Leica R 90 Elnarit, a Nikon 85 2.0, and a Canon FD 135 2.5 that I much prefer to the 105 2.5 Nikons for portraits. Whenever I say this a lot of folks trot out all their shots to show what great lenses they are. Doesn't matter, I don't like the 105 except if you want sharp. The reputation of the Nikon 85 2.0 is all over the map too. I think you either get a great one or you get a dog. Mine is indistinguishable from my Leica R 90 Elmarit at f2.8 (at f2 it's too soft) for portraits, sharper than the Leica by f4, but it doesn't have that Leica 3-D thing going for it at any aperture.

 

[Mark C]

That's interesting. I would have expected the 90 Elmarit R would be noticeably sharper than the 105 Nikkor, especially the earlier version at portrait distance. I got one to replace my 90 Summicron when that lens had an unfortunate encounter with a stone patio. It was amazing, but I preferred the softer look of the Summicron.

I didn't have the Elmarit and 105 at the same time, but sure would have thought the Elmarit was sharper at full aperture.

The 85 f2 Nikkor F mount lens really is an enigma.

 

[Corran]

Corran, a D800E would sure be handy for making quick work of a comparision. I end up shooting quite a lot of film (4 rolls last night) to ensure fair comparisons since I can't tell anything until I see the negs. Live view would be nice; I still had to shoot some further test today since one of the lenses last night gave me focus issues (and has before). That took another roll in each of 2 bodies to eliminate variables. Now I'm waiting for the film to dry. I don't really mind, but all that would have been pretty easy with a full frame digital.

BTW, is that the lens you'd normally use for that picture (meaning the Sonnar version)? Are you happy with the result?

You are right, it is handy - but I do have to say that other than commercial work, I never shoot digital! What I'm working on though is a large comparison between Nikkor rangefinder glass, pitting various models against others as well as to CV glass, and also to newer F-mount models of similar design.

I have used the Gauss design for portraits often. This was my first go with the Sonnar model specifically. It is plenty sharp, especially at typical aperture, and the 9-bladed aperture of this newer model is gorgeous and seems to impart really excellent and smooth backgrounds. Compared to the Gauss, that is - the Gauss was a tad busier in the background (and obvious 7-sided bokeh due to the aperture shape), and had some green tinging to the highlights in the background typically, which the Sonnar does not. The Gauss has been purported to be optimized for portraits, which I don't really see myself - it focuses a little closer (good!) but is blindingly sharp w/ busier backgrounds (not good!). I thought they just optimized the sharpness.

While the Sonnar is sharp as a tack a couple of stops down, while having slightly more "bloom" and spherochromaticism wider open, the Gauss design is pretty much sharp and contrasty right out of the gate. If I were looking for sharp at the widest f/stops, I would grab the Gauss, while for portraits, I'm definitely grabbing the Sonnar.

Again though, gotta do some side-by-side shots to really show this, rather than just blabbing about what I think I see. Maybe I'll change my viewpoint once I do that - it really is subjective when shooting them on totally different assignments.

What do you think of the OOF rendering of the background? It's a pretty simple black textured wall, so nothing busy to start with like foliage of course.

As a side-note, I have the 85/1.8 AI F-mount lens, and it is super-sharp as well, sharper than the newer AF-D 85/1.8 I had, but not quite as sharp as the AF-D 85/1.4 I have now. Quite a performer. I like it for a two lens kit, with a 28/2 AI or 35/1.4 AI to pair it with. When I do some comparison stuff, I'll shoot it out with the 85/2 RF lens, which is a Sonnar design - so I expect similar comparisons to the 10.5cm lenses.

 

[Mark C]

It is certainly interesting to hear the different opinions, and you are more right than I realized in how much they differ.

Some things that are obvious variables are peoples' different shooting situations, light sources (and level), b&w vs color. And especially studio or posed portraits vs available light candid and journalism (I'm in the later group).I guess trying things for your own usage is really the only way to go.

Now you guys do have me curious about the 85 f2 (F mount). A friend and I noticed years ago that all the people that we knew who were fans of that lens were studio shooters. I have no idea if that holds water or not. I have a real love/hate with every one of the F mount Nikkor 85's I've owned (1.8's, 2, 1.4), yet all have loyal fans, and I don't doubt their judgements.

I always have been curious about the old 85 f2 rangefinder lens. I may finally get a chance to try one if a friend can figure out where he put his screw mount version.