105mm signature

I have the 105mm 2.5 AIS lens, which I truly love, the images from

that lens are second to none, they have a very specific signature to

it. My question is: what other lenses on the Nikon line have a

similar signature. I am specifically asking in terms of wide angle.

 

Thanks

 

Hugh

Can you post an example picture that has this signature, and another from a 100mm-ish lens or zoom that doesn't?

The word "signature" seems vague in this application. I wonder if you could be more specific?

I think the 35mm f2 , the 180mm 2.8 ,the 85mm f2, all have the same signature (look) as

the 105mm 2.5. I believe they are all the same lens formula.I also think the 24mm 2.8 has

the same

look ,but I am not sure if it is the same formula.I do think the 105mm is the best lens

made in this range of short telephoto.

Thanks

 

Here is an example

 

http://hughjb.com/js/img3.jpg

or

 

http://www.hughjb.com/js/img3.jpg

By 'signature' do you mean 'bokeh'? Otherwise you must interpret images on a much higher plane than we commonfolk do.

Don't know what you mean by "signature," but a 28/1.4 AFD and an 85/1.4 AFD are unparalleled, especially wide open.

 

Caveat: speed kills.

 

KL

I also like the 105mm f/2.5 and use it as part of a two-lens kit, making it one of my most used Nikkors (I have 24 of them). The other lens in that combo is the 35mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor. I have traveled the world with only these two lenses quite a lot, and sometimes with a 24mm depending on where I am going.<P>

 

The reason I like the 35mm f/1.4 lens is that f/1.4 aperture. I use it a lot wide-open, even in good light. The reason? In a world of f/4-5.6 zooms, you get a different look at f/1.4, so you move out of the cookie cutter look of every shot rolling out of the one-hour labs. Selective focus is easy with a medium tele lens (like the 105mm), but they look like tele shots. Selective focus with a medium wide lens looks different. You see the environment, but the subject still pops from it. Anyhow, to me this is a unique signature.<P>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1719527"> 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor at full aperture </a>

I agree with Albert's insights regarding the 35/1.4's unique ability to isolate subjects from a slightly wider-than-normal(i.e., fast 50) background. The 105's output is really no different for me than my favorite short tele Nikkor--the old school NAI 85/1.8. This "signature" stuff sounds like a third-rate camera store pitch--sorry, Hugh.

Maybe I'm dense, but my feel for the style of the example images (beyond a blurred background rendering) have more to do with film choices than lens properties.

 

With wider angle lenses, you either need a wider aperture to limit your DOF or you have to pull the focus in front of the subject so the DOF renders the subject as desired and the background out of focus to the degree desired. Wider than 35mm, they don't make them fast enough (unless you have significant distance between the subject and background with nothing in between). You have to get too close to get the focus separation desired and you end up with perspective distortions (which is a different style or look).

I kinda know what Hugh means. When I was a journalist I could often tell which photographers used Nikon manual focus and which used Canon FD, even in coarse newspaper reproduction.

 

The Canon FD lenses generally produced "softer" bokeh - a more gradual transition from in focus to out of focus. Nikkors generally had harsher bokeh - linear objects tended to appear doubled or tripled, what I sometimes called "cross-eyed bokeh". But the Nikkor photos appeared somewhat crisper, a combination of slightly better resolution, contrast and other intangibles.

 

These are almost meaningless generalities, tho', because bokeh can vary with focus distance and aperture. I can only say for certain that I can some lenses from certain photos taken under certain conditions.

Thanks for your feedback, the picture from the link below

 

http://www.hughjb.com/jl/img1A.jpg

 

Was taken with the 85 1.4 D lens, both pictures the one taken with the 105 and the 85 were taken wide open and at ISO 1250 and under similar lighting conditions, the film was Kodak 3200, if you look at the prints there is a difference, what I am trying to do pair up a wide angle and a tele and keep the signature of the consistent.

 

I like the idea of the 28 1.4, but that is a lot of money, do you have any samples BTW.

<<This "signature" stuff sounds like a third-rate camera store pitch--sorry, Hugh>>

 

Hugh, ignore Gary. He drops down occasionally to say things like that, then trudges back up his web. Among the WA Nikkors, the 28mm 2.8 AIS might give you what you want. It has, IMHO, the same special look as the great 105 2.5. Among the longer lenses, the 180mm 2.8 ED has it also--but, oops!, you weren't asking about the longer lenses.

<em>"These are almost meaningless generalities, tho',

because bokeh can vary with focus distance and aperture." --Lex

Jenkins<br>

</em><br>

The 105/2.5 AI, AIS, etc. produces its great bokeh at close

distance and apertures of f/2.5 to 4.0. Stopping down too much

eliminates or nearly so the residual spherical aberration said to

give the 105/2.5 is mellow look.<br>

<br>

According to David Ruethers mini-review the 100/2.8 Series-E

is sharper wide open at close distance.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Note also the reivews for the 85/2.0 AIS and 135/2.8 (compact) compared to the 105/2.5 AI & AIS. Compact must mean the 135/2.8

K, AI and AIS.<br>

<br>

Nikkor -- The Thousand and One Nights, Index...<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/index.htm"

target="_new"><u>http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/index.htm</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.