AIS Nikkor 105mm - 1.8 or 2.5?

Dear Forum readers,

 

I'll be glad to hear your opinions about what 105mm AIS lens to

choose, the f/1.8 or the f/2.5. Since I shoot a lot of available light

situations such as music club sessions and candid portraits at

parties, I have strongly considered the 105/1.8 despite the obvious

drawbacks of price, size and weight. The 105/2.5 is known to be a

really good lens, among the best in optical performance. Can you share

some experience about how the 105/1.8 differs from the 105/2.5?

 

Best regards,

Mats Alexanderson

Given your desire for shots without flash at clubs and parties, you want the f/1.8 version.

 

Both 105s are considered to be terrific lenses. The 105 f/2.5 is something of a legend, due to its sharpness, its longevity as a design and its relatively modest price. The 1.8 version also is considered razor sharp.

 

I use the f/2.5 version because I don't often require low-light shots without flash.

 

Since every photon counts in your mission, perhaps an 85mm f/1.4 lens would be even more suitable.

My experience with the 105mm f/1.8 has been uniformly terrific.

In my test of one 105/1.8 AIS, three 105/2.5 AIS, AI and AI converted IC and one 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor the 105/1.8 AIS came in dead last. The 105/2.5 AIS was the best with the Micro and AI close behind. These three beat the 1.8 from f/2.8 to f/5.6. The converted AI beat the 1.8 from 2.8 to 4.0. By f/8.0 all lenses were equal. I�ve read that the 105/1.8 AIS suffers from internal flare at wide apertures. These tests were well controlled. The distance tested was 2m as most of these are portrait lenses.

 

Unfortunately I special ordered the 105/1.8 and ended up selling it at a loss within a week. Even when looking in the finder the 1.8 was flat prompting the tests. The 105/1.8 also self-focus when pointed up or down at about a 60° angle. The 105/2.5(s) are easier to focus in dim light due to better contrast wide open. I saw no reason to keep a fast lens that can�t shoot well when wide open.

 

By contrast the 85/1.4 is a little soft wide open but by f/2.0 beat my 85/2.0 from f/2.0 to f/5.6. f/8.0 seems to be the magic number, by f/8.0 the leader usually has lost it�s edge. I believe diffraction is leveling the field. As I recall the 85/2.0 also beat the 105/1.8 and my 180/2.8 ED did with ease.

 

Conclusion: 105/2.5 is a gift from Mt. Olympus!

You might consider the AF Nikkor 105 mm f/2 DC or either of

the 85/1.4(s) for your purpose. You might also find the reviews

at <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new">http://www.naturfotograf.com/</a>

helpful. <br>

<br>

Regards,

For a marginal loss in working distance, the old 85/1.8 might be a better deal. The 105/1.8 is heavy and pricey. I find the 85/1.8 to be near-perfect for this sort of shooting:sharp wide-open and easy to focus in poor lighting.

I have the 105 f1.8 and have used it for many years, primarily in concert/club settings. I feel it is a very fine lens, but it is definitely a little softer wide open than at 2.8 or smaller. However, that 1.8 gets used a lot in these conditions, if you need it you need it! I have never used a 2.5 so can't comment on that comparison, but most tests I have seen rate the 2 lenses as comparable at the same f-stop.

 

Recently however, I have also started using an older 85 f1.8 (non ai), and I feel that it is a bit sharper wide open than the 105. It also has very nice out-of-focus background (bokeh) quality. I haven't comparison tested those 2 lenses yet. However I did test the 105, a 180 f2.8 ED (mf) and a 100-300 5.6 ais recently, and they were all pretty close at 5.6, but the 180 was the sharpest wide open, compared to the 105.

nt

I have used the 2,5; 1,8 ; and also 2,0 DC lens fairly extensively for a number of years. This is my experience:

 

The 1,8 lens: soft wide open and at 2,0, probably due to internal flare, excellent at 2,8 and smaller apertures.

 

The 2,5 lens (I´ve had two): good from the largest aperture and improving smoothly dowm to f11 (!). It´s a great and compact lens. I felt it always ran slightly behind the 1,8 lens when compared aperture

for aperture.

 

The 2,0 DC: best of the lot, very sharp even wide open and probably optimal at 4,0- 5,6 already with hardly any loss at smaller apertures except very small ones. Large and heavy which is a significant disadvantage for travel photography. And very expensive (mine was used). I have used the DC feature very sparingly.

Hope this helps

 

Karl Johan

I had a 105 2.5 once. It was absolutely perfect when I got it. Used it a couple of times and got rid of it. I didn't like that stupid sliding hood. Most annoying. Think I sold it for GBP150 - maybe less. It was mint. Now my 85 F2 was beautiful.....

<em>I didn't like that stupid sliding hood. Most annoying. --Mark

Crame<br>

</em><br>

I agree but one can use any of the hoods made for the older 105/2.5(s).

The clip on hoods with two chrome buttons should be avoided as

they pop off all the time. I use an HS-8 or HS-14.<br>

<br>

Regards,

I too tried both lenses and shot many rolls of film through both of of these lenses but I finally decided on the 85mm 1.4D. Why? The bokeh on the 85 1.4D was simply beautiful. This is not to say the 105mm 1.8 or 2.5 is not excellent either but after many years of portrait shooting, good bokeh is really important to me. Again, this is art and everyone has their own individual opinion on what looks good to them. Good luck!

The 105/2.5 has great contrast, sharpness and out-of-focus background rendering ("bokeh"). I'm never concerned about using it wide-open, in fact I almost always do. Always in my pack. Oh and I love its convenient sliding hood. Different strokes for different folks.

The 105mm F2.5 Nikkor started off as a Sonnar lens design in the Leica thread mount in the 1950's. It has a 52mm thread and removeable separate hoods; and a tripod socket. There are a chrome and also a black model. The same Sonnar lens was used on the Nikon F in 1959 thru about 1971. Around 1971 the Nikkor 105mm F2.5 was replaced with a different optical formula; the Gauss/Planar type. This type is sharper than the older type when used closer than 10 feet. Both types are excellent from 10 feet to infinity.

I cut the stupid sliding hood off my Fuji GW69III with a hacksaw. Thats an even more stupid hood - you put filter holders on and you can't access the aperture / shutter speed.

Thank you everybody for sharing your opinions with me. I think David's experience with the lens self-focusing by its weight when tilted speaks against it, but perhaps it might be varying from lens to lens depending on condition. I guess I'll start out with the 2.5, and as Neil says; if I need 1.8 I'll be noticing it. And Douglas - you may have the explanation to why these blurred people pointing fingers at me often shows up on my pictures.

 

/Mats

I use the 105/1.8. It could have more contrast wide open. It's also big and heavy. I've made several 11x14 prints from it which I'm quite happy with, both wide open and stopped down. I think it's similar in performance to the 90/2 Summicron I used to use.

 

I got it instead of a 105/2.5 or 2.8 because I do a lot of available light work. One thing I can tell you is that f/1.8 isn't all that fast indoors. Despite having the faster lens and using ISO 400 film, I still have to choose my battles carefully.

 

For your intended uses I'd seriously consider one of the 85/1.4 lenses.