105mm F2.5

<p>If you own 105mm f2.5, will you still going to get 85mm f1.4 or 105mm f2.8 micro? Which one will be your first choice?</p>

I owned the 105mm f/2.5 and now have the 85mm f/1.4 and the 105mm f/2.8 macro, the 2.5 is a great lens but I needed af and macro ability. The 85mm is too short for headshots and does best for 3/4 shots, I bought that first and then the 105.

<p>I own the 105mm f/2.5, the 85mm f/1.8 and the 105mm f/2.8 micro.</p>

<p>I purchased the 85mm first, the micro second, and the 2.5 last.</p>

<p>However, to give you an idea of how these three lenses fit into my lens inventory, here is the sequence of my prime lens purchases:</p>

<p>1. The 35mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 were the first two nikon lenses I purchased. These two lenses met 80% of my photographic needs. The 35mm f/2 was later replaced by the 35mm f/1.4. I have never had the need to replace the 85mm f/1.8 with the 1.4 version.</p>

<p>2. The 180mm f/2.8 for sports.</p>

<p>3. 55mm f/3.5 micro for close-ups and macro</p>

<p>4. 24mm f/2 for wider angle shot.</p>

<p>5. 400mm f/5.6 for more telephoto shots.</p>

<p>6. 105mm micro for close-ups, macro, and portraits.</p>

<p>7. 18mm f/3.5 for ultra-wide shots.</p>

<p>8. 1000mm f/11 mirror for ultra-long shots.</p>

<p>9. 105mm f/2.5 for portraits</p>

<p>All these lenses were purchased for use on Nikon 35mm film cameras.</p>

<p>All are Nikon lenses except for the 400mm Tokina.</p>

Forgot to mention I use FX (D700)

<p>The 105mm f2.5 is much smaller and has better handling characteristics than the larger 85mm f1.4. I've owned the 105mm f2.5 since 1996 and wouldn't consider selling it, but I've owned the 85mm f1.4 a couple times and no longer own one. I would get the 85mm f1.8 if I needed that focal length again, which I already have in my 16-85mm VR zoom. I shoot DX (D300) and 35mm slide film (F100 and F3HP).</p>

<p>The 105/2.5 was the first lens I purchased in 1979 - and I still own it. Sometime in the eighties, I acquired the 85/2 - later sold. Recently got the 85/1.8 AF-D, mainly for the AF. Never had a 105 Micro (though I have it covered with the 70-180 Micro Zoom); I do have a 150/2.8 too. Have no plans for a 85/1.4 - but might consider the purchase of a Voigtlander 58/1.4 to get the same FOV on my DX DSLRs. For film use, I also have the Leica Summicron-M 90/2.</p>

<p>I have the 105mm f/2.5 and have no plans to replace it or purchase any other lens. Used in conjunction with the 35-70mm f/2.8D on my F100, I have no need to purchase a new lens in that focal length range.</p>

<p>I owned a Tokina 100 mm macro, 80-200 f/2.8 and the 85 f/1.8 prior to getting a 105 f/2.5. They still all have their place, but when possible, I will use the 105 f/2.5 because it is the best of them.<br>

The Tokina is a macro (and sees little use beyond that), the 85 is AF, which can be handy and the 80-200 is more versatile, but also a lot bigger and heavier. All of these are excellent lenses, in my opinion, but the 105 is another class.</p>

<p>(btw, on a D300 and an older Ai'ed Nikkor-P 105 and an AiS 105 - the second is a touch better wide open)</p>

<p>I also own the 105mm f/2.5 and the 105mm f/2.8 micro. I just recently sold my 85mm f/1.8 because it just wasn't cutting it for all my needs. I too, would never give up my 105mm f/2.5 that I bought in the 1980's. It is one of my favorite lenses of all my camera systems. In my view, it is the most perfectly balanced lens I own, in terms of sharpness (not too sharp like a fine aspherical), color (very slightly warm), and contrast (it renders shadows as beautifully as a bright sky). My fool-hardy side will probably buy something like the $370 Bower/Phoenix/Vivitar 85mm f/1.4 just for the heck of it. I considered adding a 105mm or 135mm DC lens, but the reviews seem very mixed. I have also considered the 85mm PC.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I also had the 105 2.5, and now the 85 1.4 and 105 micro. The 105 2.5 was one of the best, no question, and a lovely thing. But if you need or want AF then away it goes. If you're shooting static portraits I think it takes a lot of beating (likewise the MF 180 2.8, wow!) But if you're shooting moving targets, I think with modern cameras very few of us will get even close with MF.<br>

The 105 micro is super sharp and the VR is nice to have at 105mm, the 85 is lovely at f2.8 or below, less keen on it wide open.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>One of the impressive things about the 105 f2.5 is how well it performs wide open. Even at f2.5 the thing is just amazing. I think it peaks at f5.6.</p>

Dave mentioned one of the best points about the 2.5. I did some tests and the sharpness in the centre and corners was almost identical from wide open right up until diffraction set in - an impressive lens.

<p>Thanks for sharing your experience. I use the 105f2.5 with my FM2 which i feel is perfect but when i attach the lense to my D300, i feel it is very difficult in focusing especially at f2.5 when i take picture of my kids. Actually i am planning to get both of the lenses 85f1.4 and 105f2.8, but have not decided which one to get first. I like prime lenses and own 24f2.8, 35f2, 50f1.8 and 105f2.5 in the 1990's.</p>

<p>Not to hijack the thread, but my f/2.5 is the one without the built in lens hood. But I wondered if the newer one with hood built in is the same design and quality.</p>

<p>Instead of 85mm consider 135mm 2 AF-DC for portraits I have 105 micro but was not happy with portraits. It is great for macros.</p>

<p>Michael, yes, it is the same design and quality. I have never heard of a bad copy of the 105/2.5. Every copy I've heard of is excellent, and I've never seen poor images that weren't the fault of the photographer. I'm sure they exist, but I suspect it is exceedingly rare.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>when i attach the lense to my D300, i feel it is very difficult in focusing especially at f2.5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you think it's hard to manual focus with a D300, you should try it on the tiny, dimly-lit viewfinder of a D50 :-) I long ago gave up trying to manual focus with my eyes and rely completely on the focus confirmation dot now.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, I don't own the 105/2.5, but I wish I did.</p>

<p>I still own and use my 105 2.5 AIS that I bought back in 1985. I haven't been using it as much lately, as I've been using a Leica threadmount rangefinder (IIF). I notice that even though I have a LTM 90 and 135mm, I seem to prefer the 135 on the RF. The different styles of photography (RF vs SLR) came home when I tried out my F3 with the 105 again this weekend. With auto-exposure and motor drive, the F3 can shoot frame after frame in very business-like fashion. My old 105mm friend focuses quickly, shows everything I'm composing on the screen, and delivers the goods. I usually shoot from wide open to about f/5.6 to get the most out of the residual spherical aberration that Nikon left in to give it the creamy bokeh that it's noted for. By f/5.6, it is getting clinically sharp. Depth of field may be previewed prior to shooting.</p>

<p>Speaking of clinically sharp, I do also have the 70-180 f/4.5 - 5.6 Micro Nikkor zoom that Dieter has. When I first got it, I thought of getting rid of the 105 f/2.5. The Micro-Nikkor has all the sharpness that one could hope for, but it is a little too clinical and precise, especially for portraits. Great for surgical photography, which was what I initially bought it for.</p>

<p>The Leica thread mount camera is a different affair altogether. A much more deliberate working pattern. Nothing is automated, everything has to be done in a specific sequence so that you don't forget about it. The 50 year old vintage lenses have that combination of high resolution, medium-high contrast, and enough residual aberrations to give each lens character. It is very tiny though, and a pleasure to use after years of carrying around a motor driven Nikon F3.</p>

<p>My intention to get 85f1.4 is for portrait, and 105f2.8 for macro photography. I can still use 105f2.5 for head shot. If money is not an issue, i will get both now.</p>

<p>I think Ted's analysis is spot on - most of us would like to think we can focus manually as quickly as AF but we just can't! I'd have loved to hold onto my MF lenses (55 micro, 105 2.5, 180 2.8, all absolutely superb) but AF is so nice these days. And I'm a TV cameraman and so use manual focus every day!<br>

One thing that's helped me a lot with AF is using the AF button on the back of the D3 rather than the shutter release (plenty of threads on this). This way you can get around one of the main AF problems which is not being able to compose off-centre.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>If you got a buyer for 105f2.5, would you sell it? Then get the AF 105f2.8.</p>

<p>Pair the 105mm f2.5 Ai-S with a Zeiss ZF Distagon 35mm f2.0. A killer combination for film or full frame digital. </p>

<p>You guys have me so intrigued I just found one at a great price and ordered it.</p>

<p>i would get 85mm instead of 105mm, but have less time to play with photos. So need to pass my 105mm, first</p>