Manual Nikkor 105mm 2.5 or Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8???

[ben_wickerham]

Posted a question earlier asking suggestions for Nikon lenses. I

currently have a 135mm AIS and have seen many people recommend the

105mm 2.5 Nikkor. I am wondering, though, if it would be worth it to

get a 105mm lense due to the fact that there is such a limited change

in focal length betwee the 105 and the 135 I already own. Also, I

found that I might be able to get around this problem by instead

getting the 105mm 2.8 Nikkor which has Micro cababilities that may

justify the limited focal change. I know the 105 2.5 is an outstanding

lense, but wonder if the 2.8 might fill those shoes without losing the

quality and reputation. Sorry for the extended explaination!

[bjørn rørslett]

These 105 lenses share focal length, but otherwise they are very different.

The f/2.5 is famous as a portrait lens and also often used for landscapes and travels. "Newer" models (post 1975) are excellent performers with high contrast and colour saturation, and a smooth and precise focusing action. The newest model has a short hood that slides out but cannot be locked into position, which really is a nuisance. Use an ordinary screw-in hood instead.

 

The Micro-Nikkor 105 comes in different flavours (f/2.8 and f/4), the AF 2.8 is sharper at the wide settings than the MF lens and flares less, but has much harsher background rendition when it is stopped far down. It goes directly to 1:1 by using clever optical tricks (shortening of focal length), unfortunately, these tricks render it difficult to use on a tripod if the magnification is greater than 1:2. The working distance (from front of lens to subject) becomes very short towards 1:1. The MF 105 Micro f/2.8 is claimed to perform even better towards infinity than at close range, but I'm not entirely convinced this is so at least on the DSLR models I've used so far. It is a very good performer for close-up to 1:2, but needs extension tubes to go to 1:1 (actually, it goes a little beyond life-size) and will then lose the advantage gained by its CRC design unless you stop it down to f/11 or more. The f/4 has the longest working distance of them all and is a very good all-round performer.

 

Many find both Micro-Nikkors to be "too sharp" for portraiture, since they render every skin blemish with utmost clarity. The AF lens has a short focus throw as well so is not easy to focus precisely in the "portrait" range and its AF action is slow and noisy as well. The MF lenses are better in this respect.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Bjorn and Ben; the current "modern" 105mm F2.5 came out about 1970/1971. It has a larger rear element; and is a gauss optical design. It is the same lens formula as todays lens; sold new today. About 1973 the lens got multicoating; the PC variant; ie Nikkor-PC 105mm. Then the AI variant came out; then AIS. The AIS added a built in hood; and thus the mechanical mount was changed. Marketing added an enhanced multicoating somewhere too. I have seen AIS with and without the marginally claimed better multicoating. I used to buy up 105mm f2.5 for conversion with a movie camera conversion. I happen to own about 6 variants of the 105mm; and have bought over a hundred of them used. The fame of the "105mm" started with the old Nikon rangefinder 105mm F2.5 and original F 105mm; which is a Sonnar design; slightly less sharp at say 2 metres; than the newer gauss design. The older design is where the Portrait saga started.

[david_h._hartman]

Ben, the question you need to ask yourself is do you want to

photograph people or everything else.<br>

<br>

Both the 105/2.5 AI and AIS and the 105/2.8 AIS Micro make fine

general purpose lenses. The 105/2.5 has the advantage for people

as it has the famous mellow defocused background rendering if you

shoot at a close distance like 2m and wide open. I ran off three

105/2.5(s) of the Gaussian type against a 105/1.8 AIS and I threw

in a 105/2.8 AIS Micro. The ranking for image sharpness at 2m was

105/2.5 AIS, 105/2.8 AIS Micro, 105/2.5 AI, 105/2.5 IC and last

was the 105/1.8 AIS. I attribute the difference in the 105/2.5(s)

to sample variation. There was little difference between the

first three.<br>

<br>

There is substantial difference between the 85mm 105mm and 135mm,

at least for me. I own (2) 85mm(s), (3) 105mm(s) including a 105/4.0

AI (not tested with the above) and (2) 135mm(s). Yes I have NAS.

Why do you ask?<br>

<br>

If people are a high priority you want the 105/2.5 AIS, AI or AI(ed)

K or IC. If you want to shoot close-up such as plant life along a

trial you want the 105/2.8 AIS. You might want a 105/2.5 AIS and

a 105/4.0 AI.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

I differ with Bjorn Rorslett somewhat on the 105/2.8 AIS Micro.

This lens makes a good general purpose 105mm. For close-up the

advantage of the CRC is not lost if one does not mind carrying a

PK-12, PK-13 and PN-11. You always use the shortest tube

necessary so the CRC or floating elements are in the close-up

position not in or near the infinity position. Stopping down hard

as Nikon recommends doesnt cut it for me. <br>

<br>

I agree with Bjorn in that when using a 105mm for close-up not as

a general purpose lens Id rather use the 105/4.0 AI or AIS.

Its much easier to use just one tube and I prefer the PN-11

for its tripod collar. <br>

<br>

Im not a shill for Bjorn although I drop links to Bjorns

sight quite often. I am indeed a satisfied customer

of his advice. Ive bought several lenses based on his

reviews and Ive always been very satisfied. These lenses

include the 28/2.0 AIS, 55/3.5 Micro compensating aperture, 105/4.0

AI Micro and 400/5.6 ED. I wish he had, had his site up when I

bought my 300/4.5 ED-IF but then the internet was probably in the

planing stages then and the Web wasnt even though of. Id

have bought a 300/2.8 ED-IF or 300/4.5 ED (non-IF) instead.<br>

<br>

I was about to sell my 20/3.5 AIS after buying a 20/2.8 AIS an

decided perhaps I should have a look at Bjorns review. Ive

been turning lenses towards the sun since I was about 5 or 6 and

Im not about to stop so I could not sell that lens. Not

only did I not sell the 20/3.5 AIS but I ordered a K-Ring set

from KEH.com for the 20/3.5. I feel really stupid about the K-Ring

set. In the 70s I wanted to use a tube with my 24/2.8 and

the E2 and PK-11 were too long. I knew about the K-Ring set but

the idea of screwing together tubes seem old fashioned or

something. My first published photo was of a architectural model

where I shot at ground level with a Vivitar 28/2.5. It didnt

focus close enough so I fudged it by stopping down to f/16. The

image ran small so in print the image sharpness was fine. The

architect love it. <br>

<br>

Id like to thank Bjorn Rorslett for his entire site, not

just the lens reviews and technical stuff. I love the photography.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Here is my table of free working distances. I was questioned

about the accuracy some time ago so I re-measured everything and

this is the result. The data on the 105/2.8 and 4.0 Micros looks

fishy but I triple checked it.</p>

 

<table border="1" cellpadding="4">

<tr>

<td>Micro-Nikkor Lens</td>

<td align="right">1:2</td>

<td align="right">1:1</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/3.5 Compensating </td>

<td align="right">110mm</td>

<td align="right">55mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/3.5 AI </td>

<td align="right">111mm</td>

<td align="right">56mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/2.8 AIS</td>

<td align="right">113mm</td>

<td align="right">56mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>60/2.8 AF</td>

<td align="right">122mm</td>

<td align="right">73mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/2.8D AF</td>

<td align="center">---</td>

<td align="right">136mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/2.8 AIS</td>

<td align="right">244mm</td>

<td align="right">173mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/4.0 AI (& AIS)</td>

<td align="right">277mm</td>

<td align="right">172mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>200/4.0 IF AI</td>

<td>495mm</td>

<td align="center">---</td>

</tr>

</table>

 

<p>All measurements are mine except for the AF 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor.

That measurement came from the Nikon brochure Nikon World of

Close-up Photography, 1994. Notice that the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor

has the best free working distance at 1:2 buy a comfortable

margin and is virtually tied for best at 1:1 with the 105/2.8 AIS

Micro-Nikkor.<br>

<br>

Ive also measured the free working distance of the AF 70~180/4.5~5.6D

Micro at 1:2 and 180mm (marked) and its the same as the 105/2.8

Micro, 244mm. The foot on the tripod collar is tiny and the

collar needs shoring up. Otherwise the 70~180 Micro is a great

lens. The 70~180 has the same angle of view as my 180/2.8 ED at

infinity but something happens to the focal length inside that

black box. My idea is its tossed and the excess barrel

length becomes an extension tube.<br>

<br>

Sorry about rambling so much. Hope this helps.<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 105mm F1.8 AIS seems to vary widely in pricing on the used market. It is a great lens; abit larger than the F2.5; and not was not made for decades; and thus has a lessor following and cult factor. It has a 62mm filter size. <BR><BR>The choice of lense varies alot with the type(s) of photos you shoot.

[tomweis]

<p><i>...the AF 2.8 is sharper at the wide settings than the MF lens and flares less, but

has much harsher background rendition when it is stopped far down. It goes directly to 1:

1 by using clever optical tricks (shortening of focal length), unfortunately, these tricks

render it difficult to use on a tripod if the magnification is greater than 1:2.</i></p>

<p>I wonder; does the Kino Precison Optics (Kiron) 105 f2.8 micro lens use the same

trick? It, too, goes 1:1. I have one and like it very much, especially since I paid $40 for a

mint sample. It's very sharp.</p>

[roland_vink]

<i>does the Kino Precison Optics (Kiron) 105 f2.8 micro lens use the same trick?</i>

<p>

You can work it out. When a lens is focused at 1:1, the focus distance is roughly 4x the focal length. For example, my AiS 105/4 micro gets to 1:1 at about 420mm (105mm x 4). This lens has no floating elements so the focal length stays constant. For lenses with floating elements you can work backwards to find the focal length. For example the AF 105/2.8 micro focuses to 314mm at 1:1 so the focal length is 314/4 = 78.5mm. Tthe real focal length will be different depending on the distance between the principle points but it is a good approxiamation.

[jos__javier_vicente]

I won't discuss the pros and cons of every 105 lens, specially after the very documented opinions you already received.

I just wonder whether you really want a 105 lens or you are just blinded by the high praise that the 105s receive, you know, the most convenient macro focal lengh, the best portrait lens ever made... I personally feel happier with the 135 than with primes in the 85-105 range, that look short to me. If the focal length does not fit your style, it doesn't mind what a marvel the lens is. That said, I like to travel light and shoot fast, so I rely on a reduced number of lenses. If you are in a quieter and more reflexive way of shooting, maybe the 105 will open some new gates to you.

My personal experience with the 135 3.5 is that it is a very good lens for landscape and portrait, very useable even wide open and with good bokeh. I just did not found a way to use it for close up, I complement it with a short barrel 50mm coupled to an extension tube. These days I'm going lazy and replace very often this combo by a 75-150 (with 4T for wonderful macro) on film or by a 35-105 on D70, though its bokeh is not so smooth.

[brian_caldwell]

Bjorn Rorslett , jul 21, 2005; 06:57 p.m.

". . . the AF 2.8 . . . has much harsher background rendition when it is stopped far down. "

 

I'm extremely curious about this. When you stop a lens way down it should become diffraction-limited. The only possible causes I can think of to create bokeh differences would be diaphragm shape and lateral color. Is this what you are seeing?

[ro_ro]

David,

 

you could add 220mm for the AF 105 Micro at 1:2.

 

I own this lens and the only thing I don't like is colour fringing with objects that are just not in focus when the lens is used wide open and close focussed.

Stopping down at least two stops solves this problem and makes it a fine lens.

 

Here is a comparision of macro lenses:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/longterm/2005/07/06/1866.html

 

Regards

Ro