Two 105's - is the elephant afraid of the mouse?

Just came across a T Nikkor 10.5 f/4. It is quite a bit smaller than a 105/1.4E as one would expect. Oddly, it is a bit longer than a 105/2.5, but a good bit lighter. Will let you decide which is which from the cropped (and resized to the 1000 limit) Z7 images:

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by robert_bouknight|1

PS: Both shot at 1/500 & f/4.5, auto iso selected identical values.

The more 'seamless' bokeh leads me to believe the second image comes from a simpler lens construction. I.e. from the older lens.

 

I'd be quite surprised if the topmost image was taken with the 105mm f/4, but there's not really enough contrast, colour variation or fine detail in the subject to make the comparison more generally valid.

Well, the lighting was flat and I had the camera PC set to portrait. Here is another whack at it, same order of lenses as a clue

 

 

;)......the 2nd is the more expensive one... i think!

That is a fun comparison! and both combinations look monstrous..

And I would find both results acceptable, really.

At some point I lusted for a 105/2.5.. but ended up with adding another 105/2.8 AIS micro.. which has sort-of-OK bokeh, but can get SO MUCH CLOSER than the rest.

The T 105/4 does focus closer than the other non-micro 105's, closest marked distance is 2.75ft and it goes a little closer. The others generally go a little closer than 3.5' or 1 meter.

That is a fun comparison! and both combinations look monstrous..

....and your decision at to which is which? :D

I think the second image was done with the newer lens.

 

Rick H.

The T 105/4 does focus closer than the other non-micro 105's, closest marked distance is 2.75ft and it goes a little closer. The others generally go a little closer than 3.5' or 1 meter.

Hmm... surprising the minimum focus distance is not close at all. The 200mm micro is 1.6' and even the 24-200mm super-zoom S lens is only 1.64'. The new 105mm f/2.8 S lens is 11.4" (less than 1').

I think the second image was done with the newer lens.

 

Rick H.

I'm inclined to agree, bokeh looks smoother on the second photos.

That is a fun comparison! and both combinations look monstrous..

And I would find both results acceptable, really.

At some point I lusted for a 105/2.5.. but ended up with adding another 105/2.8 AIS micro.. which has sort-of-OK bokeh, but can get SO MUCH CLOSER than the rest.

I have both the 105/2.8 micro ais and the 105/2.5 ais. For close ups of flowers etc. the 105/2.8 micro ais is really good. I have posted pictures taken with it in classic manual camera' s film camera week for July 16, 2021. For general use I prefer the 105/2.5.

I wouldn't know which one is which, because I never had either of those lenses, but in the first pair I prefer the bokeh of the second shot, and in the second pair the second shot again seems a little sharper. If those (the two no. 2 shots) are from the same lens, then that's the lens I prefer.

Not even going to attempt a guess now. I've done this sort of side-by-side comparison myself, and the slightest variation in focus point can flip the decision.

 

Also, the varying leaf positions evidence a breezy environment.

 

All it shows is that at like-for-like and mid apertures a well cared-for old lens can equal a faster modern one.

 

I think the difference would be blindingly obvious if Nikon had produced an equally ancient 105mm f/1.4 lens, and that was compared wide open with the G version.

Thanks to all for having a little fun with this. The 2nd images are with the 105/1.4E.

 

As RJ pointed out, the wind was moving the stalk around, I had enough shutter speed but nailing focus on the moving target with the T10.5/f4 was difficult due to shallow DOF. This was the best of 3 shots, I think it is in focus. Looking at the original closely, The 105E is definitely better. I think maybe better not so much due to sharpness, but I think the contrasty edges generate a little local flair that robs detail in the high contrast areas when using the T10.5.

 

Of course, I tried out a bunch of other 105's later Saturday. For this photo setup, the 105/1.4E definitely looks the best of them all. The subject isolation and background bokeh is notably better with the 105E, even with the same aperture set for the other lenses. Second place Saturday was a bit of a surprise, a 105/1.8AIS looked good and bested the rest with all contestants set to f/2.8. The 105/2.5PC(gauss type) looked a lot like the 1.8AIS, but bokeh was a little bit less good. To my surprise, the 105/2DC finished next, I thought it would beat the 1.8 and gauss 2.5. The 105/2.8 AFS-G micro and 105/2.5 rangefinder(sonnar type) looked less good. All were good enough, though, for use on a Z7.

 

Focus accuracy has been very good with the combo of Z and 105E. The combo can nail focus at f/1.4, if the composition works with the super shallow DOF.

 

When packing a super light kit, the Canon 100/3.5LTM is still my choice over the T10.5/f4. Results look similar when the two are compared (both good enough), but the Canon + adaptor is a bit smaller. My small/light kit still consists of a 14-30S, 40/1.4 Voigtlander M mount, and the Canon that can use the M-Z adaptor. Maybe the 24-200Z is a better choice over the two adapted manual lenses, might have to check one out.

Second place Saturday was a bit of a surprise, a 105/1.8AIS looked good and bested the rest with all contestants set to f/2.8.

Hmmm. That's interesting.

I abandoned using my Ais f/2.5 in favour of the f/1.8 version, based on like-for-like aperture comparisons made with a D800. However, a recent reprise of the comparison on my Sony A7R4 reversed the decision. Maybe the much-maligned 'thick cover glass' had an effect?

Dunno, but the f/1.8 aperture, with its accompanying flare, comes in handy in contrasty low light situations.

 

I still might get around to Dandelion chipping the f/2.5 to make it more useful and quicker to use. Or both the Nikkors might get abandoned in favour of my newly-acquired Sigma 105mm 'Art' macro. Stunningly sharp and with really fast and accurate AF. Resolves the hairs on a bumble bee's body from several feet away!

hairs on a bumble bee's body

High res lens on a high res sensor.....What's not to like??

 

:cool:

 

Apart from the fact non of it is Nikon.....:mad:

Edited July 19, 2021 by mike_halliwell