Photos with Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S

[jonmanjiro]

I am OK with the qute from the Nikon site - it qualifies appropriately the statement seeming to exclude the 105mm from criticism regarding bokeh.

cheers

That comment is a specific reference to the Gauss formula 105mm F2.5 though, not the previous Sonnar formula lens. Nikon's website coyly doesn't state which particular Nikkors where known for bad bokeh, just that the reputation of those lenses affected the reputation of the entire range of Nikkor lenses. I'll quit rambling on now and post a photo taken with my Ai-S 105mm F2.5!


桜 by Jon, on Flickr

 

[Highway 61]

The later Gauss version really has a much nicer bokeh than the first Sonnar version.

Although not being a bokeh nut I was very surprised with what the bokeh of the Sonnar version looked like. I was expecting something very smooth but I saw the contrary.

So the later Ai-S version combines all the advantages IMO (but for a build quality which is a bit lesser than the Ai version because of some play in the focus and general assembly due to some polycarbonate inside).

 

[Sparrow]

--- ---​

I don't think any of them will spoil an otherwise decent photo myself ... this is with the ais lens ...



Alice Getting Bored, Howdenbrook par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity

 

[wilonstott]

That comment is a specific reference to the Gauss formula 105mm F2.5 though, not the previous Sonnar formula lens. Nikon's website coyly doesn't state which particular Nikkors where known for bad bokeh, just that the reputation of those lenses affected the reputation of the entire range of Nikkor lenses. I'll quit rambling on now and post a photo taken with my Ai-S 105mm F2.5!


桜 by Jon, on Flickr

Cool shot.

What's the breakdown on this--tripod mounted at about a 30th or 15th?

Also, is that film or digital?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Cool shot.

What's the breakdown on this--tripod mounted at about a 30th or 15th?

Also, is that film or digital?

Thanks! This is digital. It was taken using a D700 on a tripod with a shutter speed of 1 second to catch motion blur of the branches and people.

 

[kxl]

桜 by Jon, on Flickr

Jon - is that the promenade at Sumida River Park in Asakusa?

-Keith

 

[jonmanjiro]

Jon - is that the promenade at Sumida River Park in Asakusa?

-Keith

Hi Keith, no this by the river near my apartment in Yokohama. It's a popular local cherry blossom spot.

 

[wilonstott]

Well, I got my first stuff back that I shot with this lens, and I like it quite a bit. I believe the hype. It's the longest lens I own, and I'm still getting comfortable with the focal length.

Here's a few. All are Provia 100f with an FE2.

Thanks for all the previous info, and please continue to share examples of shots with this lens.

 

[TennesseJones]

Nikkor 105 2.5 ai-s, D610
This is a shot we used in 'McQueen', the play, at St James Theatre in London.

 

[Stuart John]

Here is one from my 105 f2.5 sonnar version.

 

[Ronald M]

Yes, the two lenses should render a bit differently. The later Gauss formula lens was specifically designed for smoother OOF rendering in an attempt to counter the reputation that Nikkor lenses had at the time for poor bokeh.

Sonnar optical formula:

Gauss optical formula:

Found here.

The rear element of version two almost fills the bayonet opening. The Sonar is half that size, a dime or less.

The first thing I noticed is near minimum focus distance, the Sonnar is not as sharp at 2.8. Stopped down, both are the same.

 

[Godfrey]

Nikkor 105/2.5 ... a delightful lens. I owned an early pre-AI version as well as the last AI-S version. Both produced beautiful results.

I'd buy another, now that I have the F6, but I've become hooked on the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 AI-S. It renders a little differently, no less sweetly, and is still an extraordinary performer with macro focusing as a bonus. It is a bit larger and heavier, courtesy of the macro focusing mount.

G

 

[kshapero]

This is one of my favorite Nikkor lenses since the 60's. The focal length is just right. IMO it's one of Nikons best primes.

100% totally agree. Just sharp as a tack throughout.😀

 

[Nokton48]

The Nikkor 105mm lens is a legendary lens. THE lens for fashion and beauty head shots. Evidence of this is above ^^. I've owned both versions of the early lenses, and the AI-S, as well. They all have their merits 😉

Nowadays I'm more of a Minolta guy, the 100mm F2.5 MC Rokkor holds it's own against any Nikkor. 😀 And the 100mm F3.5 MD Macro can hold it's own against the 105 Micro Nikkor, which I have also owned. 😀

Whatever you decide to go with, just enjoy the lens. 😛

 

[Godfrey]

...
Nowadays I'm more of a Minolta guy, the 100mm F2.5 MC Rokkor holds it's own against any Nikkor. 😀 And the 100mm F3.5 MD Macro can hold it's own against the 105 Micro Nikkor, which I have also owned. 😀
...

Why was it necessary to say that in a thread about the Nikkor 105mm lenses? I'm enthused by your infatuation. But no matter how good your Minolta lenses are, they're not going to fit on my Nikon bodies. That makes them not worth much to me at all.

G

 

[Noserider]

I can assure you from my repair and tune of a few 105's all versions that the Ai version has not a bit of polycarbonate internally. It DOES have a few internal construction details that are common to the mid-length changes found in Ai spec, and many of those 'inconsistencies' were changed in the Ai-S version, which for this reason I recommend the Ai-S version over the Ai version. Both are good but the Ai version has a tendency to be quite stiff over time, and while a competent CLA will equalize it for the price and relative availability I suggest the Ai-S. unless the Ai version is dramatically low (and usually the reason the price is low is due to that stiff focus).
Nikon was making changes to their lens manufacturing process specifically in cost and volume and the Ai spec while somewhat simplifying (rubber grips instead of knurled) the internal complexity (and the problems it made) IMO warranted the change to Ai-S.
I knew of a few older shooters who had very strong feelings that the older F Non Ai lenses were a much higher level of internal quality and that specifically the Ai versions were 'junk'. While I never had such thoughts about the junk status of Ai after repairing and tuning many lenses from all the eras the old timer's were correct about the F series they are very well built. The Ai-S series has more stamped parts that are meant to be replaced rather than renewed. The Ai series seemed to have more modular constructions but with added complexity especially in the final adjustments which were then locked solid into place with TIGHT screws and thread sealer.

 

[ferider]

Yes, the two lenses should render a bit differently. The later Gauss formula lens was specifically designed for smoother OOF rendering in an attempt to counter the reputation that Nikkor lenses had at the time for poor bokeh.

I don't think that's correct.

The 10.5cm Sonnar was intentionally undercorrected for spherical aberration giving it great bokeh for portraits, but making it a low resolution lens at infinity for any f-stop below f8. See also http://www.nikkor.com/story/0045.

The later Gauss version increases infinity resolution wide open.

Roland.

PS: The 8.5cm has busy bokeh as you say (but is quite sharp even wide open, at all distances). Because the 8.5cm and 10.5cm are so different, I'm keeping both. My 10.5cm Sonnar is probably the best bokeh lens I own.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I don't think that's correct.

I was just paraphrasing Nikon's own website, Roland. More details in my subsequent comments (to the one you quoted) in this thread.

 

[ferider]

I was just paraphrasing Nikon's own website, Roland. More details in my subsequent comments (to the one you quoted) in this thread.

Cool, Jon.

When I got my 240, I systematically tested all my lenses. And was surprised how "soft" the 10.5cm was at infinity (compared to the 8.5cm) - until then I only had found one reference to the same behavior by another user. I then researched it a bit more systematically. I know you know your Nikkors .... my post is more directed at other users (for example post #22). Basically, the 10.5cm was designed as a portrait lens, a "bokeh machine" with beautiful, painterly blotched background, while the 8.5cm was more general purpose (its resolution convinced DDD to switch to Nikkors, etc). My only other lens that renders backgrounds like the 10.5cm is the 75 Summilux.