Nikkor 105/2.5 and 135/2 DC?

Hi just curious to know your opinions about these. I still use my Fm2n very occasionally, prob wouldn't be my choice if i was fully digital. These two are very close in FL but your views on them?

 

 

Cheers.

I have the Nikor 85/1.4 and a Sigma 105/2.8 OS Macro. I find that if you have the real-estate (to back up), the longer the lens the better. This gives a more real shot. I hae the FM2N,F100 and a F6. The latter two can use the Sigma and the FM2N can only use the 85. I don't cry much.

 

My Digitals are DX and I tend not to use either lens as the crop factor makes it a little too long. My Nikor 60mm/2.8 suffices.

 

I watched a youtube video documentary on a guy in the 50's that only used long lens. Remarkable and sadly I don't remember who it was. I started using longer lens and when I walk around with a film camera I mainly use a 70-300 zoom.

 

 

FM2N, Nicor 35-135 Zoom, Orwo N74+

 

So, backup and zoom in. The longest you can actually use will give you the best / real results.

I was thinking about comparing the 105mm f/2.5 with the 105 f/1.4 but then I realize that the f/1.4 won't work on the FM. Oh well, it would work at f/1.4 only which isn't as bad as a G lens which only works at minimum aperture.

The Ai-S 105 f/2.5 can still pass muster on a D800, but I prefer the f/1.8 version. They're both among the few MF Nikkors that don't embarrass themselves on a high megapixel DSLR.

 

Never used the 135 DC, but I bought the Samyang 135 f/2 a couple of years ago. I can't fault it. It's as near to optically perfect as I've ever seen. Its bokeh is neutral, so I'd see no reason to fiddle with any DC adjustment. And besides, I try to avoid making out of focus blobs the main subject of a picture.

At the price that they sell for these days, every Nikon user should have a 105/2.5.

 

I had both the 105DC and 135DC for a while. I like the 135mm focal length, but found that it was just to difficult to achieve perfect focus with the 135DC, and the 105DC performed better at near wide open. So, the 135DC was sold. There are some good budget 135mm choices such as the 2.8 and 3.5 AI versions, or maybe the Samyang.

 

Having said all of this, I tend to use an 85mm more often than a 105 or 135mm.

The Nikon 2.5/105mm (and in particular the Gauss version) has a near mythical reputation among classic Nikon lens fans

Best check bjorn Rosslett's reviews and comments at Nikongear if you want to learn more on the different versions (pre Ai, non and multicoated etc)

 

Got one together with my F2AS back in the late 70's/early 80's, but never liked it very much

Most likely my own fault though, used it most of the time as a short tele for low light shooting, at shutterspeeds arond 1/60th (it was in the days when ISO 800 really was about as high you could go) and inevitably ended up with blurred (due to camera shake) images

Got a 2/85 Ais instead which allowed better use at 1/60th, although that wasn't an exceptional lens, just a good and decent workhorse

 

Have the 2/135DC, use it on my DF and D800's, usually (nearly) wide open, never use the DC fnction

It's an old lens, design dates from around/over 20 years ago, and consuently does not have the characteristics

many demand nowdays such as (extreme) sharpness and high contrast as can be found on the more modern Zeiss and recent Sigma 1.8/135mm

 

I personallly love the 'softer' image and lesser (extreme) detail rendering, which for my taste goes much better with eg portraits (rather then shooting a picture showing each pore and detail, only having to later in post processing 'correct' that with 'clone and paste' or 'Portrait Pro' software)

 

Also prefer it over the 2/200 VR (I know, blasphemy) for fashion location shooting

Much lighter and portable, much less intimidating for the model, while having a quite comparable (shallow) DoF rendering when used wide open

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by paul_k

I have used both lenses for many years. They are tricky to focus precisely but results can be beautiful. I love the rendering of clothes and skin using these lenses. I never got around to playing with the DC setting much. I think the 105 is sharper and not as susceptible to flare as the 135. The 135 I would prefer to use around f/2.8 to f/4 mostly; at f/2 it is a bit frail for my taste. Stopped down a bit it can be a nice lens. Both lenses give very beautiful out of focus rendering.

 

A modern lens like the 105/1.4 is much sharper at wide apertures and has less LoCA than the DC Nikkors, however it is big, heavy and expensive. I do use the new 105/1.4 and like it but I would have preferred an f/2 for a more compact size.

 

Of the two DC Nikkors my favorite is the 105. I feel it gives a very beautiful rendering of people and clothes but maybe other lenses are better for landscape.

IMO the FM2n and the 105/2.5 are two of the greatest accomplishments in Nikon's history. Real gems.

For IQ v ££ the Samyang 135mm f2 is a no brainer. OK, it's MF, but on a locked-down tripod and carefully focused it's sublime.

 

For a 150mm, the Sigma OS Macro, esp on LV focus, suits my requirements.... perfectly.

Edited May 19, 2017 by mike_halliwell

IMO the FM2n and the 105/2.5 are two of the greatest accomplishments in Nikon's history. Real gems.

 

I have had that lens twice, sold it once when raising funds for a zoom and regretted it. Then I bought one brand new from B&H in 2002 and use it all the time on all of my Nikon bodies ( F3, FM3A, F100, D750 & D810 ).

 

It's a spectacular lens, including wide open. It's also very small and works great for moving through tight crowds. Here is a shot from the 2017 World Cup Ski Finals of Lindsy Vonn in March at F2.5 with a D750:

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by DB_Gallery

For real world as opposed to test chart shooting, the 135, like DB's 105 shot above, produces a stellar image. I use it on an FM2n or d700. It produces a gorgeous image if used within it's limitations. I am usually shooting at at least 2.8, but for headshots, 3.2 to get both eyes in focus. By then the color fringing is gone or instantly controllable in post. I rarely use it above f/4 unless f8 for a traditional head shot. Do you need more skin sharpness than the above image? The bokeh on this lens is magical. Google photos taken with this lens. Put a 70-200 shot next to it and there is a difference. When I am forced to move up to 36 or more MP's with the d810 replacement, it may spare me lugging the 70-200 beast, I'll just crop the 135. Of course, that seems light weight now that I lug a 10 lb 400 mm 2.8 and gimbal/heavy tripod for nature and sports. Yes, it would be nice to see this lens updated. However, I don't want to trade the gorgeous bokeh for more sharpness I don't need.

Not a very fair comparison. I don't own the 135DC but own the 135mm f2 AIs and 105mm f2.5 AIs and I find my 135mm f2 much sharper but heavy and bulky. A friend has the new 105mm f1.4 and it is a dream. They are all good lenses, it depends how you use them.

I really, really like my non-AI Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5

I use it on Nikon film cameras and on Canon Digital cameras.

At the price that they sell for these days, every Nikon user should have a 105/2.5.

 

IMO the FM2n and the 105/2.5 are two of the greatest accomplishments in Nikon's history. Real gems.

 

This.

 

Never used the 135, so I cannot compare, but the 105 f/2.5 delivers and can be found at extremely reasonable prices. Balances perfectly on a FM2 too, it doesn't get front-heavy and hence harder to hold still without a tripod.