105mm AI f/2.5

was this a good lens? someone here has it for $200. he says it is in excellent

condition. i have been looking to buy the 105mm Af f/2.8D is this AI version

comparable? is this version also considered a "macro" lens?

is it worth buy for that price?

what would this lens best be used for?

will this AF on a D80?

thanks!<div></div>

It's a wonderful lens. I dreamed to have it for years, since I bought my Nikon FM, and finally got one in 2003: an AI converted lens with original hood and caps.

<br><br>

It was, and hope still is, highly regarded as a portrait lens. <br>It is <i><b>not</b></i> a macro lens.<br>

<br>

The only thing you should consider is that this one is <b><i>not</b></i>an AI lens. It's the immediately previous lens, with all the features, coating of the AI lenses but stopping down to f32, but <i><b>without</i></b>the indexing tab you need for your D80.<br>

<br>

Also, the price is peculiar: I spent USD179,00 from B&H, with a guarantee. 200 dollars seems a bit high to me.

And it is NOT an autofocus lens- so no, it won't autofocus on your D80

can the lens be mounted on a d40? i have both a D80 and D40.

i am guessing it will be manual focus on both cameras...

A manual focus lens will not autofocus on any camera, it's manual focus only. It will mount on the D40 but won't meter, either. It could damage your D80 being it's non-AI. $200 is too much. If you wan't macro get the 105mm Micro f/2.8 AFD, but it won't autofocus on your D40. You need AF-S lenses for that.

thank you everyone- very helpful. i am gonna pass on this one.

there is some guy selling a 24mm f/2.8D AF for $150 i think ill get that one instead.

That appears to be in approximately the same serial number range as mine. My sample is extraordinary, possibly the sharpest lens I've ever owned. Based on experience with the lens I'd say it's worth $200, especially if it comes with the original lens hood and front and rear Nikon caps. But it depends on whether you're shopping for a price or for a lens. A comparable Zeiss lens in Nikon mount would cost that much and would probably not be noticeably sharper.

hmmm that is very good point. i think i will at least go an look at the lens.

tho the 24mm at $150 is very tempting...

i need/ want both lenses...ugh i wish i had a money tree!

I have the same edition, I had a Nikon AI ring fitted to it shortly after I bought it. Found it MINT on ebay for $49.99. Thrilling bargain. Bought another 105mm (the P.C. Auto) version that had the AI ring, sent both lenses to my technician, and he swapped them out for me and I resold the 105mm P.C. Auto with the non-AI ring on it for a small profit.

 

I recently tested this 105mm against my Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom, and in the center of the frame, they are about identical in performance. But get down to the bottom or the right side, and the 70-300mm just falls to pieces where the 105 f2.5 is still sharp as a pin.

It would be a mistake to pass up adding this lens to your system. It is one of the few older lenses that I didn't upgrade when I went to digital. It's so good there is no purple fringing. Excellent color rendition and bokeh. I wouldn't sell mine for anything.<div></div>

It's not a good lens. It's a great lens.

 

A PITA on the D70, but pain I can live with. I won't be selling my copy to anyone. Picked it up in mint condition (everyone seems to get their copies mint these days) for 135 Euros, so you are not too far off the mark. However, mine is AIS but I think it's the same as the AI.

200 bucks is alright I guess depending on the condition. It's a short tele lens, so you are the only one who can decide whether you want this or not.

 

Used Tamron 90mm 2.8 is also another good option for you, and it's a real macro lens, but it's also an excellent portrait lens. And I mean excellent portrait lens, not excellent portrait lens considering it's a macro.

The 105mm f2.5 is a wonderful lens. You may enjoy this tale of its history and the engineer who designed it.

 

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n05_e.htm

 

But contrary to what has been posted here, this particular lens is not a good deal. Even if the lens were in "excellent" condition, to an acutal shooter, instead of a collector, it is worth no more than $160. The 704xxx you are looking at, as has been pointed out, is a pre-AI. It won't mount safely on a modern autofocus body, without putting the AF contact block at risk. The modification to correct this is about $35, plus shipping, say another $5.

 

$200 is what KEH charges for an EX condition AI version. Neither the optical design nor the build quality of this lens has changed noticeably from the 4 group pre-AI (1971-1977) to the AI (1977-1981). Hence, the $160 for an "actual" EX specimine of the lens. While KEH ratings are on the conservative side of realistic, photo.net member ratings tend to be rather "optimistic" (although not as bad as theBay). Without lens in hand, and having seen other lens deals here (like a "mint condition" lens with fungus), I'd say $140 is a reasonable counter offer. Not a penny over $150.

"It is not a macro lens."

 

It is. It is my best macro for certain applications like that below (the hologram on a 50

euro bill viewed obliquely).

 

D3 + AI 105 mm 2.5 (at 2.5 and 1 m) + BR-2A + K-3 + pre-AI 50 mm 1.4 (at 1.4 and

infinity) + BR-3

 

The 50 mm is mounted reversed, therefore the two first two rings. The last one serves as a

hood.

Just my experience, but...

 

The 105mm f/2.5 has been in my top two Nikkors for over two decades. It is part of a two-lens kit (the other being the 35mm f/1.4) that has traveled all over the world with me and has never failed to get me good shots. It has just the right combination of tight framing, selective focus, and beautiful rendering of the parts of the scene that are not in focus. Operationally, the bright image in the finder along with the narrow DOF make manual focus quick and sure. It is a great lens.

 

Now as I explore digital with Nikon DSLRs, I have not been able to make the 105mm f/2.5 work as I have enjoyed it for the last 20-plus years. The 1.5X crop of the digital capture has made it too long for my normal way of using it. It is not bad, just different. Maybe if I have not had so much experience with it, I could enjoy the "new" angle of view, but I have from years of experience been able to move to just the right spot to make the 105mm on full frame work without even having to look in the finder... I had my "105mm eyes" on when ever that lens was on my camera. In short, the 105mm f/2.5 that I had enjoyed for so long on full frame (film) is not the same lens when I put it on my DSLR... in my opinion.

 

FWIW... I am still trying to find my medium telephoto for digital, one that gave me what the 105mm did on film. 70mm (on a zoom) gives the same field of view, but the DOF and Bokeh are not even close. My 85mm gives pretty good DOF selectivity, but it does not match the smoothness in the out-of-focus areas when compared to the 105mm f/2.5.

 

Yep, the 105mm f/2.5 is a great lens. I am holding on to mine waiting for the day when a full frame DSLR is offered at a lower price.<div></div>

Semantics, Kari. Any lens can be used for closeups when combined with extension tubes or bellows, closeup diopters, or reverse mounted. But that doesn't make it a macro lens. Macro lenses are designed to produce flat field results and correct for optical errors peculiar to close focusing.

 

Jonathan, I hadn't noticed that this is a non-AI lens. If that's the case it's not worth $200 unless it offers some particular collectible value (which is unlikely).

 

Look for an AI or AI-S version. Mine is the AI version with HS-8 hood which reverses over the lens barrel as a sort of shroud. The AI-S version came with a sliding hood similar to that of the 180/2.8 AI and AI-S Nikkors. Mine included the original front and rear caps and L37c multicoated protective filter when I bought it for around $225-$250 in excellent condition several years ago. Having seen how well it performs I wouldn't sell it at any price as long as I continue to use Nikon gear. But I'd say $200 for a comparable lens with caps and hood (and filter, if possible, tho' I wouldn't count on it) would be reasonable. I doubt there's an equally sharp moderate telephoto or zoom out there for that price, manual or autofocus.

Albert, which 85 are you shooting? I've not been impressed by the f1.8 versions, but have found the f1.4, either manual or AF, to be equal on digital to the 105 on film, albeit a bit longer at 128mm equivalent.

 

Very prettiest one, if you can handle manual focus, shoot mostly in the f1.5 to f5.6 range, and have an SLR that can meter stopped down, is to find an old 75mm f1.5 "Zeiss" Jena Biotar in M42 (or maybe Exakta, Praktica, or Praktina) mount, and have it converted to Nikon mount.

 

Or switch to Pentax and get the 77mm f1.8 limited.

As an added bonus, an Ai-S will be, on average, 10 years newer than a pre-AI, which is 10 less years for the lubricants to gum up, fungus to grow, scratches to accumulate.

"<I>Neither the optical design nor the build quality of this lens has changed noticeably from the 4 group pre-AI (1971-1977) to the AI (1977-1981)</I>"

<P>

There were two optical versions of the 105 f/2.5: the early version is a Sonnar design, the late models were a modified Gauss design. The late models are better at close range than the early models.

So far, we've only been talking about the "4 group" version in this thread (and not all of the 5 minor variations of that, even). Nikon refers to as a "Xenotar type", and I've never really gotten the reference to it as a Gauss type. That's just labeling anything with a Gauss section a "Gauss", which would make just about every modern zoom a "Gauss", because they all have a Gauss section or two. The 4 group Nikkor is a Gauss section followed by a non-Gauss positive group that shortens the lens and corrects a lot of aberrations of the single Gauss, without the massiveness of a second Gauss section. A Xenotar.

 

The Sonnar (3 group) variation is ancient history, manufactured from 1959 to 1971. It was only manufactured in the single coated version. There were two other versions of the Xenotar version before the one we're talking about. Fron 1971 to 1973 the Zenotar was produced with single coating, 1973 to 1975 in multicoating with the fat, knubby metal focusing ring. Then, from 1975 to 1977 the version that Jonathan was looking at, with the "modern" rubber ring.

Joseph, thank you for the correction. The "Xenotar type" was descriped as a *modified* Gauss at its introduction.

Joseph, I remember you stating in another thread that you're doing field macro with coupled

lenses: 50 mm f1.4 or 20 mm f2.8 on 105 mm f2.5 or 200 mm f4. I'm curious to know how

you set the aperture and focus of the frontmost lens and whether it is reversed or not.

 

Are there differences in the usability among 50 mm f1.4 versions?

 

Plus, how do you calculate the effective aperture for a combination like these.

<I>Or switch to Pentax and get the 77mm f1.8 limited.</I><P>

 

Don't laugh, but I have actually considered this option. Besides the 77mm f/1.8, Pentax makes a 70mm f/2.5 that has been reviewed as being quite good. The thing with the 70mm is that it is tiny, just like a pancake lens.<P>

 

My other thought is to wait for the 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, which is said to have more rounded aperture blades for better bokeh and a 90mm (film) field of view.

Hi Kari.

 

Yes, I always reverse the front lens. I usually do this with a home made macro coupler. I make them by gluing Cokin P-rings together face to face. They jam much less than the off-the-shelf couplers at B&H or local camera stores. And I typically use either a BR-3 or a BR-6 on the reversed lens. Either of those will give you 52mm filter threads, to mount a UV filter. You're working very close to the subject, so rear element scratches are a very real danger, and rear element scratches are much worse for image quality than front element scratches are, especially for a wide angle (I sometimes reverse my 28mm f2.8 and 20mm f2.8).

 

The BR-6 is nice because it gives you the ability to focus and compose with the reversed lens wide open, then use a double cable release to stop the reversed lens and trip the shutter.

 

The effective aperture is easy as pie to calculate for a 50mm f1.4 on a 105mm or a 200mm. It's literally the f stop of the front lens * the ratio of the focal lengths. So a 50mm f1.4 wide open on a 105mm is 1.4*105/50 = f2.94. It's easier to just say 105mm/50mm = 2, and then we double the f stop, so call it f2.8. That means you're going to have to worry about diffraction with the front lens set to somewhere around f8-f11, which gets us effective aperture of f16-f22.

 

It's living heck to calculate effective aperture on a 28mm or 20mm wide, because of the "pupillary magnification factor". In other words, the aperture of a retrofocus wide angle lens is only correct when you're looking at the front of the lens: the exit pupil (rear image of the aperture) is larger than the entrance pupil (front image of the aperture). The end result is a 20mm f2.8 acts a stop faster reversed.

 

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dofderivation.html

 

Don't worry too much about the version. The optical design of the 50mm f1.4 has remained essentially unchanged for half a century (a tribute to the strength of the design, or a sign of laziness among lens manufacturers? You decide). The only difference in 50mm f1.4 verions is the coating, and since stacking increases the number of elements, you want the better coating, say post 1973.

 

And if you really want the least vignetting and the best image quality, the best place to stop down a coupled 105mm and 50mm is not at the aperture mechanism of the front lens, or that of the rear lens, but rather, right between the lenses, using a waterhouse stop. You can make a waterhouse stop holder surprisingly easy.

And Douglas, thanks for the correction to my correction.

 

Unfortunatley (or maybe fortunatley) I missed the introduction of the 105mm ;)