Jump to content

Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 Sonnar


Recommended Posts

<p>I just received a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens from KEH in EX condition. My copy started out its life pre-AI but at some point was AI-converted. This sample is from the last cohort of the early (Sonnar type) version of this lens (see http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#105). This type was soon replaced by a different version having a Gauss lens formula and which went on to become legendary among Nikkors.</p>

<p>Here are several views of the lens:</p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405147905.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="520" /></p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405147908.jpg" alt="" width="603" height="399" /></p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405147907.jpg" alt="" width="479" height="400" /></p>

<p>The AI conversion was reasonably clean, and looks very clean when not enlarged like this:</p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405147906.jpg" alt="" width="454" height="400" /></p>

<p>Unfortunately there is a little ding on the rear element (speck in left center in the first photo and the blob in the second photo):</p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405147904.jpg" alt="" width="338" height="516" /> <img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405147909.jpg" alt="" width="390" height="400" /></p>

<p>I have not yet seen any effects from this defect in taking a few photos, but advice is welcome. All photos but the last one taken with a Nikon D7000 and a Nikkor 105mm f/4 AIS micro at f/11. Closeups used the PN-11 extension tube. All lighting improvised using multiple media. Pardon the dust!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Photos with this lens (with some cropping):</p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405148134.jpg" alt="" width="597" height="399" /></p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405148130.jpg" alt="" width="519" height="400" /></p>

<p><img src="http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL437/1642984/24278681/405148132.jpg" alt="" width="597" height="399" /></p>

<p>We still have some autumn color here in northern California, though most deciduous trees have dropped their leaves. So far, so good. The only problem I've seen has been severe flare when shooting into the sun and that seems to be an issue with this version of this lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have an older version of this lens, c. 1960, still in its pristine non-AI state. Its focal length marking says "10.5 cm" and its distance scale shows only feet, not both feet and meters. I'm quite fond of it, but I've never had the opportunity to properly compare it to the later Gaussian design.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Sonnar type is also legendary.</p>

<p>I bought mine in 1970. Two, actually, one for me and another for my brother who was also a Nikkormatist. I once shot an event with our two Nikkormats and 105/2.5 Nikkors, one body for b/w, the other for color. The Sonnar type's only weakness is that it wasn't quite as good at its near focusing limit as farther away. t 1:1 on bellows it couldn't be focused wide open, but that wasn't what it was made for.</p>

<p>I eventually used mine as a down payment on a 105/4 MicroNikkor, since replaced by a 105/2.8 MicroNikkor. All excellent lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 in its original non-AI form, which I bought a few years ago to use on my older Nikon equipment, and - more particularly- to use also on my Canon EOS and FD-mount cameras with adapters.<br>

It is a truly worthy lens. I'm a sort of Double-Gauss junkie, but some Sonnars (like the Olympic 180mm f/2.8, my Rollei 35 lens, and this one) are mighty lenses, indeed.</p><div>00bAvS-510599584.jpg.cf5ed6b658642b9dd4b134ebef6e2705.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the responses!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My copy started out its life pre-AI. . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This could be taken as implying that some of the Sonnar 105/2.5 lenses were AI, which was not the case. That was careless of me. The changeover to the new lens formula happened in 1971, well before the switch to AI compatibility in 1977.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Congratulations on having the Sonnar 105. I have a black Rollei 35 with the Sonnar f2.8 zone focused lens made/assembled in Singapore (I think the lens was made in W. Germany). I first purchased a new AIS 105 f2.5 with built-in hood and like it very much. Still use it on a D700 & D800. Occasionally, I would see anecdotal comparisons of the AIS with the AI Gauss version which made the point that the AI, with the detachable hood, was better in handling flare than the AIS. So, I purchased an AI with the hood and found that my AIS was generally contrastier than the AI but could flare more quickly than the AI when pointed near the sun or lights. In those cases, I now leave the AIS hood unextended and use the AI hood on the AIS which gives the AIS better flare control.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Working backward, I have an AI, a 'K', an all black P, a silver & black P converted to AI, a silver & black P not converted to AI and I think a cm. The silver & black converted P is on long term loan to a fellow photo.netter. I find the earlier and later lenses close in performance. My preference is to use these lenses closed down a few stops for portraits and that also makes them seem similar. The all black P, K and AI all have very good coating. The earlier lenses require more care when using them in difficult lighting situations. To round things out I would like to have the PC and the AIS models. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff, that's quite a collection. I'm planning to pick up an AIS version at some point though I have other priorities at the moment. What's nice about my copy of the 105 Sonnar is that it's AI-converted and can be used on my D7000. At some point I'll do a cross-comparison with my 90/3.5 Voigtlander, Nikkor 105/4 AIS micro, and Nikkor 105 DC. Should be interesting.</p>

<p>I'm always game for copies of the very early (cm) versions of F-mount lenses if they're in excellent condition. I have very nice 58/1.4 and 28/3.5 cm versions which I have not gotten around to trying out yet.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 105/2.5 is a fine lens no matter when it was built. Bought mine (Gauss) in Japan in 1974 and then AI'd when I returned to the states. The flare is v. well controlled on mine. I also have Tammy 90/2.8 and sometimes wonder which one is actually better, I mean not that it's going to make much difference. I really like that my model actually goes to F32. Not too far back I had to take a shot where large part of the subject had to be in focus and I either used F22 or 32, and the shot came out v. crisp....didn't spot any diffraction.</p>

<p>After my D700 arrived I used the 105 for appx 1/2 a year without (almost) taking it of...yes, you can call it infatuated. I was looking at various photo samples from the new (at that time) D3X....and I realized that if the right technique is applied....the results could equal or even exceed - those were mostly on dpreview. Naturally, I can't say this about other lenses. Anyway, back in mid 70's this was considered as the best lens that Nikon made....and it took me a wile to see it why.</p>

<p>Les</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 105/2.5 is a fine lens no matter when it was built. Bought mine (Gauss) in Japan in 1974 and then AI'd when I returned to the states. The flare is v. well controlled on mine. I also have Tammy 90/2.8 and sometimes wonder which one is actually better, I mean not that it's going to make much difference. I really like that my model actually goes to F32. Not too far back I had to take a shot where large part of the subject had to be in focus and I either used F22 or 32, and the shot came out v. crisp....didn't spot any diffraction.</p>

<p>After my D700 arrived I used the 105 for appx 1/2 a year without (almost) taking it of...yes, you can call it infatuated. I was looking at various photo samples from the new (at that time) D3X....and I realized that if the right technique is applied....the results could equal or even exceed - those were mostly on dpreview. Naturally, I can't say this about other lenses. Anyway, back in mid 70's this was considered as the best lens that Nikon made....and it took me a wile to see it why.</p>

<p>Les</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 105/2.5 is a fine lens no matter when it was built. Bought mine (Gauss) in Japan in 1974 and then AI'd when I returned to the states. The flare is v. well controlled on mine. I also have Tammy 90/2.8 and sometimes wonder which one is actually better, I mean not that it's going to make much difference. I really like that my model actually goes to F32. Not too far back I had to take a shot where large part of the subject had to be in focus and I either used F22 or 32, and the shot came out v. crisp....didn't spot any diffraction.</p>

<p>After my D700 arrived I used the 105 for appx 1/2 a year without (almost) taking it of...yes, you can call it infatuated. I was looking at various photo samples from the new (at that time) D3X....and I realized that if the right technique is applied....the results could equal or even exceed - those were mostly on dpreview. Naturally, I can't say this about other lenses. Anyway, back in mid 70's this was considered as the best lens that Nikon made....and it took me a wile to see it why.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<div>00bB8C-510817584.JPG.32985ccedfcce4b1c42c99a899d4d5bf.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Its so funny that you mention this lens since only a couple of weeks ago I traded my SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (Radioactive) for one in excellent condition in a craigslist deal. Now, why did I do this you might ask, as the Tak is a legendary lens in its own right? Quite frankly I am loaded down with awesome performing fast 50's but really had nothing near a 105mm focal length and have been wanting just a little different perspective to shoot from recently.</p>

<p>So with some trepidation (as I am not a Nikon lover, though I do recognize the quality of their glass) I mounted it up on my trusty NEX 7 and this artillery piece was the result.<br>

<img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8351/8307676962_3b28c2da02_c.jpg" alt="" width="531" height="800" /></p>

<p>Now the funny thing is it may look a bit odd but the lens is <em>perfect </em>on the camera. It really balances well and is just a treat to use. I was mucho impressed. Here are some shots from the first bit of light I ran through it. The last photo is with the Minolta Close Up Lens No.2 attached. Odd, but every shot with the No.2 on the Nikon came out dreamy and soft. I rather like it.</p>

<p><em>little girl waiting</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8351/8299452056_bb50783d42_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>another domestica</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8504/8299453536_b5ae14a21c_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>the angry photographer</em><br>

<em><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8077/8298399743_1a507dde44_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>rain on the screen door </em>(with Close Up Lens No.2)<br>

<img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8215/8299452754_cf8ba12353_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /><br>

<br>

Overall I am very pleased with the lens and cant wait to shoot more with it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David -- that is the Gauss design you have, on what's called a K lens which is the version Nikon did of some lenses between their F and their Ai designs. K's generally look like Ai's but without the second row of aperture numbers below the outermost bottom rim. </p>

<p>The larger point being that not all "P" 105's are Sonnars. SN 120xxx-286xxx are 5 element/3 group Sonnars. The next versions are P's in the 400xxx series, then the PC's in the 500xxx series, and these both are double Gauss, 5 element / 4 group designs. </p>

<p>I have an early P sonnar and the double gauss Ai-S and I love them both. The Sonnar is definitely softer at the edges at f/2.5 and f/2.8. I would say the Ai-S lens also has a more remarkable conlor rendition on film and sometimes simply a magical quality of resonance and depth I cannot really pinpoint very well. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David's lens is not a 'K' model. It is the earlier PC. The 'K' lenses have rubber covered focusing rings and do not have a letter designation showing how many elements the lens has. The 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor had a rubber covered focusing ring on the P, PC, 'K' and AI models. In the case of the 50/1.4 there were two 'K' models. The early 'K' had the optical design of the SC while the later 'K' had the optical design of the AI. To confuse things more, the coating on the 105/2.5 black P looks the same to me as the coating on the later PC and 'K' models. In all other cases I know of the lenses with the C designation have coating which is much better than that of the earlier models and nearly as good as anything available new today. After the C lenses coating technology improved more slowly. The AI conversion of the first 105 shown looks like the typical good work of John White. Apart from the 105 I have only a few cm lenses: 2.8 cm f/3.5, 13.5 cm f/3.5 and 20 cm f/4. I have seen very few 58/1.4s and do not own one. My 50/1.4s include a pointy prong S, a round prong S, an SC, both 'K' models, an AI and an AIS. I have used the oldest lens the most but for looks I really like the last 'K' version. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff - Quite right, I confused the 500xxx series with the 600xxx. Indeed the K lenses almost always look exactly like the AI, which would mean the rubber focus ring etc. Don't know what I was thinking.... must be all this pressure over the fiscal cliff. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Vince and Jeff, thanks for all that extra history and information. I dont know near as much about Nikon lenses as I do about Minoltas and all this back history is very interesting.</p>

<p>Micahael, glad to hear you just picked up a 7. It is a superb camera and has helped me grow as a photographer, as much as any single piece of gear can I suppose. As I said, the handling of the camera with this Nikkor attached is damn near perfect. I would love to see some photos when you get it.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...