Canon 100mm/2.0 vs. Nikkor 105mm/2.5 [input needed]

I very much like the Nikkor 105mm/2.5 for its sharpness and overall performance. It is a hevay lens.

 

I have heard good things about the Canon 100mm/2. I may get the chance to get such a lens, but I am unsure

whether it is worthwhile spending $500 plus on it, given that I already have the Nikkor.

 

Does anyone here own a Canon 100mm/2? Is it excellent optically?

 

I wonder how it compares with the Nikkor, which is a $350 lens.

 

Thanks.

 

Raid

<i>I may get the chance to get such a lens, but I am unsure whether it is worthwhile spending $500 plus on it, given that I already have the Nikkor.</i>

<p>

Only you can decide if it is worth it, Raid. $500/- for testing a lens is not worth the cash, IMO.

<p>

Can't you just borrow one like you did for the 50mm lens tests?

Vivek,

I wish I had such a chance.

I bought from someone a lens recently, and he contacted me for a possible follow-up sale of another lens [being the 100/2].

 

Two individuals contected me yesterday about buying lenses from me. If I sell a lens, I may be tempted to get the 100/2. Else, I doubt it right now.

The 100/2 is also a heavy lens. singnature wise one is sonnar one is plannar. I think you are better to save the money to pay for the college tuition for your kids.

Dan,

 

I prefer the Sonnar look over the Planar.

 

The lens would only be bought if I sell a lens for a similar money value.

I am saving foir my chidlren's tuition ... thanks for the reminder.

Raid,

 

I have tried them both and the Nikon 105 blows away that Canon. The Nikon 105mm was also available in a lightweight mount in LSM. (Check Marc Small's book)

 

I advise you to buy the Canon to try it. It is only a small amount of money

 

Jerry

Raid

You can remove the tripod mount from the 105/2.5 and make it lighter and less bulky. My suggestion is get raid most old lenses and just leave a set you like for classical looking, since the film era will be ended in the future, like it or not that's the trend and fact.

".. . since the film era will be ended in the future, like it or not that's the trend and fact."

 

What a silly statement. I can still buy oil paints and water colors. And LP's and turntables. Yes, film is now more of a fine art material, but there is a market.

you can still buy oil paintings because oil paint tubes are not going to go out of fashion anytime soon. the same is not true for film. give it ten to fifteen years and there would be a scarcity of commercial labs.

Starvy, at at least for b/w, who needs commercial labs?

Film will last like vinyl does, in a niche, but yes!

It's too simple and too good to be forgotten!

You can make copies in a darkroom!

Palpable photography!

Serious adepts will stay with that...

Raid, it's not needed to compete against this mythic Nikkor...IMHO.

Good light!

I don't stop enjoying photography and usage of camera equipment with an eye on phasing them out. The craftmanship of quality lenses and cameras is there to enjoy.

 

I also start to believe that someone else would be happier with a Canon 100mm/2.

Pentax 70/2.4 (APS C...105 equivalent) will out-resolve both, and it's better-built physically. I wish there was a RF version.

I knew some diehard film fan dislike the end of film era. The fact is it is difficult to processing color film in your home, you do not want to poison your wife (maybe you do) and kids. pollute the enviroment by dump the chemcial in the sink. BW faces the same enviroment problem, well you may donot care.

 

After I removed the 105/2.5 's tripod mount, I feel less bulky.

Raid, I have the Nikkor 105/2,5 in Nikon S mount and the Canon 100/2 in Leica LTM. They are both good. The former is

stellar and the latter is amazingly good for an f2 that is over 4 decades old. I have compared it to the late Summicron 90/2

non-asph. shooting on the M8 and it is almost as good. $500 seems a bit steep. Don't touch it unless it is mint. Mine is

near mint and I paid less than $400 in Japan.

Hi Alex,

 

I sent you an email.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

It seems that almost eveyone here loves the 105 Nikkor.

Someone just bought a Canon 100/2 on ebay for less than $110.

film is here to stay, just like vinyl, tube amplifiers, acoustic instruments, and handwritten letters. That does not mean

that the market won't shrink. As for the environmental issue...well, you might want to look into that a bit further. Properly

handled, most darkroom chemicals are not very toxic, and there are low impact alternatives available. Xtol is based

around ascorbic acid (vitamin c), stop is either just water or acetic acid (vinegar), fix is only bad when it is saturated with

silver. Many recycling centers and lab take fix and remove the ionic silver -- it is lucrative and environmentally beneficial.

Film itself is primarily made of gelatin -- a renewable, if grisly resource. Film cameras also outlast digital cameras by a

huge margin -- Leicas from the 30s are still in regular use. They also typically have far less electronics built into them.

The true environmental culprits are in the semi-conductor and electronics industry. Demand for the exotic metals and

components to produce sophisticated electronics is responsible for conflict throughout the developing world -- Sony's

demand for the coltan used in the Playstation 2 helped spark a long protracted war in the Congo. Let's not get started on

the batteries. Just because you don't have to use darkroom chemistry does not mean your camera choice does not have

environmental impact. <P>Anyway, I am not hear to say you can't use one or the other, just be aware of the impact of

your choices. I do use both film and digital, but I have no illusions about one being far greener than another.

I sold a 100mm F:2.5 Nikkor and replaced it with a 100mm F:2.0 Canon. I've NEVER been disappointed with the performanceof the Canon.

 

Paul

Paul,

This is interesting since the nikkor 105mm is a lens with cult status.

How would you compare the twol enses?

 

 

Raid

I never compared them side by side - and I tire quickly of discossions between individuals who evidently spend countless square miles of film shooting USAF resolution test targts. My Canon is lighter than the 105 Nikkor, faster than the 105 Nikkor, and doesn't give away anything by way of sharpness or contrast (to these aging eyes) versus the Nikkor. They're both excellent otics. I don't give a crap about cult status. . . I'm into functionality.

I can understand these differences. The 105 is a heavy lens indeed. I am currently content with the 105/2.5 until further notice.

 

As for lens tests based on resolution charts, I have never done such tests and I may never do "tests" per say. I "compare" lenses or I maybe "try out" lenses.

Here is the 10.5cm F2.5 LTM @F2.5 Nikkor on an M3 with Fuji Superia In the Tulane student section: Its got alot of green because of Green wave effect<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-427.jpg?t=1223825820"><BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-444.jpg?t=1223826003"><BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-429.jpg?t=1223826097"><BR><BR>Here is an Ice Pilots player shot with an Epson RD-1/s at F2.5 with the 10.5cm F2.5 Nikkor: The first small image is the full image; ie what the 2000x3000 pixel cropped 1/1.51X RD-1 sensor "captured"; with its sub full frame sensor. Its shot thru the dirty hockey glass. The nest two images are cropped sections of the same image; shot wide open at F2.5 and an iso setting of 1600, I suppose a 90mm new summicron would be better than my 100 buck lens that bought an paid for eons ago.<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/_EPS4278PENSACOLA28SULLIVANsmall105.jpg?t=1223826261"><BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/_EPS4278PENSACOLA28SULLIVANmediu-1.jpg?t=1223826334"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/_EPS4278PENSACOLA28SULLIVANlarge.jpg?t=1223826414">

The Tulane shot is at 1/250 in the Superdome with just dumb Superia 800; thus one has some grain. <BR><BR>Here I have used trhe old 10.5mm F2.5 for along time; even with shooting hockey. Here is another shot at F2.5 with 800 superia at 1/250 second and a M3 of a Checkers player<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-406.jpg?t=1223827268"><BR><BR>Here is another one of Raids players ; another Ice Pilot Oliver about to hit the ice; shot with a 13.5cm F3.5 LTM Nikkor @F3.5 at 1/250 second with an M3 and tri-x:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-456.jpg?t=1223827456">

Kelly,

The Nikkor is most likely sharper than any non-asph Summicron.The photos above are very sharp.

In Canon LTM there is also the 100mm F4 and F3.5 models; in Fed their is the slow F6.3 lens! Minolta made a 135mm F4 in LTM; Nikon made a F3.5 and the rare F4 model.<BR><BR> A slower 105mm in LTM I bought awhile back for 29 bucks on Ebay is a Kyoei Optical Co LTD Super-Acall 105mm F3.5; its decent when stopped down a few stops; but is abit soft wide open by todays standards. Its got a stub cam on the lens so it wont work on a Zorki; unless one unloads the pie cam by sticking ones finger thru the shutter.<BR><BR>The old 135mm F4.5 Steinheil culminar LTM I picked up on ebay for 25 dollars works well; the 85mm F2.8 Steinheil culminar LTM is soft wide open. Both appear to be Tessar designs; the shorter 85mm design is not a good lens unless its stopped down alot. Mine cost about 30 bucks; I see some folks hawking them on ebay for 300 to 400 and think somebody would have to be nuts to pay that much for a so-so lens. F2.8 is probably way to fast for an old Tessar and thus its poor at the faster fstops.