goliathus
Well-known
I have a plan to buy a potrait lens for my SP.
Candidates are 10.5cm/2.5, 8.5cm/2.0 and 8.5cm/1.5.
Does anyone knows characteristics for these lenses? like a sharpness(wide-open) or the resistance
against someharsh back light condition.
Thanks in advance. : )
Candidates are 10.5cm/2.5, 8.5cm/2.0 and 8.5cm/1.5.
Does anyone knows characteristics for these lenses? like a sharpness(wide-open) or the resistance
against someharsh back light condition.
Thanks in advance. : )
Last edited:
FPjohn
Well-known
They are both sharp, and both worth getting. I have both for my Nikon RF's.
If you have to get one before the other- get the 10.5cm F2.5, then the 8.5cm f2.
10.5cm F2.5, wide-open on the S3:
Tight Crop,
Another crop:
8.5cm f2 wide-open:
At F4:
If you have to get one before the other- get the 10.5cm F2.5, then the 8.5cm f2.
10.5cm F2.5, wide-open on the S3:
Tight Crop,
Another crop:
8.5cm f2 wide-open:
At F4:
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
105mm/2.5.
There is no question at all for me. I have both, but the 105 is unique.
There is no question at all for me. I have both, but the 105 is unique.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
One thing that's notable about the 105/2.5 is that it had terrific "microcontrast" long before the term was coined. That means it does a great job of rendering fine textures such as fabric, skin, and eyelashes.
I'll take the word of the others that the 85/2 is okay, but the 105/2.5 is something special, and for that reason alone I'd say it's the one to seek first.
I'll take the word of the others that the 85/2 is okay, but the 105/2.5 is something special, and for that reason alone I'd say it's the one to seek first.
VinceC
Veteran
This is a hard decision. I own both lenses (105/2.5 and 85/2). My experience includes lots of daily use, and both seem to perform with equal excellence. Both take some skill and practice to accurately focus wide open. (The same is true with their SLR variants).
The 105 was so popular during the RF era because people didn't have the SLR option. The 1:1 Nikon finder allows you to focus a 105 more accurately than an 85/90 on a Leica.
When I carry the 85, I usually also want to carry a 135 for long reach. With the 105, it works as the single telephoto in my bag. The 105 is heavy, weighs as much as a camera body. But that makes it very easy to handhold at 1/30.
The 105 was so popular during the RF era because people didn't have the SLR option. The 1:1 Nikon finder allows you to focus a 105 more accurately than an 85/90 on a Leica.
When I carry the 85, I usually also want to carry a 135 for long reach. With the 105, it works as the single telephoto in my bag. The 105 is heavy, weighs as much as a camera body. But that makes it very easy to handhold at 1/30.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
The 105 is a little too long for RFs IMO, hard to focus, slower obviously,
and at minimum distance has not more shallow DOF than, say a 90/2.8
at 1m.
I had both, sold the 105, and kept the 85/2 due to speed,
easier handling and easier focusing.
It depends a little if you get an older chrome or newer black
lens. Most opinions you will hear are based on the chrome 85.
The black 85 is lighter and easier to handle. The 105 only comes
in black.
It's a close call but I decided for the 85, maybe because I use it
on non-Nikons (see my current avatar).
Roland.
and at minimum distance has not more shallow DOF than, say a 90/2.8
at 1m.
I had both, sold the 105, and kept the 85/2 due to speed,
easier handling and easier focusing.
It depends a little if you get an older chrome or newer black
lens. Most opinions you will hear are based on the chrome 85.
The black 85 is lighter and easier to handle. The 105 only comes
in black.
It's a close call but I decided for the 85, maybe because I use it
on non-Nikons (see my current avatar).
Roland.
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
I have both the black 85/2 and 105/2.5, and prefer the 85/2 because it is a lot smaller, and significantly lighter than the 105. As others have said, both are excellent performers. I would also agree that the 105 is probably sharper overall than the 85, but not by much. Part of my preference is that I find the 105 a lot harder to focus than the 85mm lens.
raid
Dad Photographer
This thread has reminded me to take the 105 lens as my longer lens in an upcoming short tip. The sharpness alone is sufficient to justiify using this lens. I have little difficulty focusing with it.
VinceC
Veteran
>>Focusing wide open with a Nikon SLR does not require pushing the DOF button, so focus is obvious, you get exactly what you see. That is the enormous advantage of an SLR over an RF with telephotos.<<
Accurate focusing is just as obvious on a rangefinder ... the two images line up.:angel:
In practice, both systems can be a challenge to focus accurately wide open. The world of SLR shooters is filled with telephoto images where the photographer slightly missed the focus ... I know I've got plenty of those in my own files. And autofocus systems help but aren't perfect. They automatically focus on the wrong thing.
Accurate focusing is just as obvious on a rangefinder ... the two images line up.:angel:
In practice, both systems can be a challenge to focus accurately wide open. The world of SLR shooters is filled with telephoto images where the photographer slightly missed the focus ... I know I've got plenty of those in my own files. And autofocus systems help but aren't perfect. They automatically focus on the wrong thing.
BillBingham2
Registered User
goliathus,
I've had both and each is a wonderful lens. I've kept the 105 in both LTM and S for different reasons. The Chrome 85 was a bit heavy and I might have kept it if it was a black version. My M4-P kit is a 15/4.5, 40/1.4 and 105/2.5 with a 25/4 in the bag some times.
My S3-2000 kit includes a 105 because of the built in frame lines. With an SP I would not be afraid to go with an 85/2 and a 135/3.5. The black 135 is very small and a fine lens.
IMHO, NWM is right about the RF/SLR thing. I think RFs are the perfect camera for 50 or winder lenses, 85 and up my nod goes to my SLRs. While I use a 105 on my S3, it's because I am lazy and not making money this way these day. One body handles everything from 25 to 105!
What do you want to shoot with the lens? What's your style? While the speed of the 85 helps, I think this might be another way to approach it.
B2 (;->
I've had both and each is a wonderful lens. I've kept the 105 in both LTM and S for different reasons. The Chrome 85 was a bit heavy and I might have kept it if it was a black version. My M4-P kit is a 15/4.5, 40/1.4 and 105/2.5 with a 25/4 in the bag some times.
My S3-2000 kit includes a 105 because of the built in frame lines. With an SP I would not be afraid to go with an 85/2 and a 135/3.5. The black 135 is very small and a fine lens.
IMHO, NWM is right about the RF/SLR thing. I think RFs are the perfect camera for 50 or winder lenses, 85 and up my nod goes to my SLRs. While I use a 105 on my S3, it's because I am lazy and not making money this way these day. One body handles everything from 25 to 105!
What do you want to shoot with the lens? What's your style? While the speed of the 85 helps, I think this might be another way to approach it.
B2 (;->
I have an 8.5cm f2 for my Nikon RF and an 85/2 AIS series for my F2A. The F2A has a K-Screen in it, and I've used F2's for 30 years. I have an easier time getting the focus correct with the Nikon SP. I find it easier to "lock on" by making the two images coincide rather than processing the "raw image". But this is the age-old RF vs SLR debate. It's a feedback loop between eye and hand with the brain responsible for processing.
Sonnar2
Well-known
I've sold my Nikkor 105/2.5 LTM, kept the 85/2. The size, weight and handling difference is huge when the small focal length difference is taken into account. Although I felt a 85 a bit too close to 50 for my kind of work, and a 105 more ideal (plus my Canon P has 100mm framelines, no 85)
I've kept my Nikkor 105/2.5 in Nikon F mount as well. The length is less an issue and it's easier to focus with an SLR. Cheaper as well.
I think both lenses were excellent at their time. The 105/2.5 design is about 5-7 years younger than the 85/2, and the difference in performance isn't huge. There is more noticable difference between the old 105/2.5 and the newer 105/2.5 released in 1971.
Frank
I've kept my Nikkor 105/2.5 in Nikon F mount as well. The length is less an issue and it's easier to focus with an SLR. Cheaper as well.
I think both lenses were excellent at their time. The 105/2.5 design is about 5-7 years younger than the 85/2, and the difference in performance isn't huge. There is more noticable difference between the old 105/2.5 and the newer 105/2.5 released in 1971.
Frank
Last edited:
I have both and love them both.
85/2 wide open (click to zoom in)
85/2 wide open (click to zoom in)
Last edited by a moderator:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Actually you can't see this "exactly," only as an approximation, because depth of field also depends on a number of other factors including the degree of enlargement of the final image, viewing distance to the final image, and the observer's visual acuity. This makes any depth-of-field calculation simply an estimate.
The view through an SLR finder corresponds to only a modest degree of final enlargement, which accounts for the experience that many of us have had when using an SLR of being sure the image we saw through the finder had the focus right where we wanted it, only to find in the final image that the plane of best focus was somewhere else.
Another thing that not everybody knows is that the fresnel condenser lens in an SLR's focusing screen imposes a limit on the lens' effective aperture. The fresnel lens doesn't capture all the rays emitted by the lens, only their center portion, giving the same effect as if the aperture were stopped down slightly. With a typical focusing screen (or so I've read) the cutoff is at about f/2.8, meaning that a lens faster than this may appear to have more depth-of-field at wide apertures than it really does. (Canon and Nikon used to offer accessory focusing screens with condensers optimized for wide-aperture lenses, but they're not easy to find.)
So while it's true that an SLR viewfinder may make the photographer feel he has exact control over depth-of-field, that sense is partly an illusion!
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
Gosh!
Very hard decision... myself I decided to have both (in fact in S mount, LTM and.. F mount).
The 105's are sharper than any other 85's with the exception of the 85 1.4 AF.
BTW (just to make things... "better") give a try to the always forgotten 135 3.5 (in black if possible) you will be surprised, and it's cheaper.
Very hard decision... myself I decided to have both (in fact in S mount, LTM and.. F mount).
The 105's are sharper than any other 85's with the exception of the 85 1.4 AF.
BTW (just to make things... "better") give a try to the always forgotten 135 3.5 (in black if possible) you will be surprised, and it's cheaper.
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
Both are better 
Kiu
Kiu
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
OK, let me be serious.
I vote for the 10.5cm. Why?
The 8.5cm is almost impossible to find in black and Chrome, although chrome examples are easier to find. But for the price of the Chrome 8.5cm one can buy the 10.5cm....
I rather have a 10.5cm than a chrome 8.5cm, but then that's me!
Kiu
I vote for the 10.5cm. Why?
The 8.5cm is almost impossible to find in black and Chrome, although chrome examples are easier to find. But for the price of the Chrome 8.5cm one can buy the 10.5cm....
I rather have a 10.5cm than a chrome 8.5cm, but then that's me!
Kiu
VinceC
Veteran
For what it's worth, here are the lenses compared for size and look. Black and chrome 8.5cm/2 and black 10.5cm/2.5. (The front ring of my black 8.5cm has a 48-52 step-up ring on it that doesn't like to come off easily ... the actual front ring is chrome).
Kiu is right. The 10.5cm/F2.5 is certainly the best value out there.
Kiu is right. The 10.5cm/F2.5 is certainly the best value out there.
Attachments
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
>>You have one of the early 105s with the bayonet lens shade<<
Mine didn't come with a shade. I use a generic screw-in shade.
I've been thinking more about this topic. For portraits, I prefer the working distance of the 85mm lens. With the 105mm, you often have to step back a little too far away. BUT ... the 105 remains a more useful all-around telephoto if you intend to carry only one telephoto.
Mine didn't come with a shade. I use a generic screw-in shade.
I've been thinking more about this topic. For portraits, I prefer the working distance of the 85mm lens. With the 105mm, you often have to step back a little too far away. BUT ... the 105 remains a more useful all-around telephoto if you intend to carry only one telephoto.
Last edited: