Improved optical performance in AIS Nikkors over AI versions?

[jeff_z.]

I'm considering purchasing a used lens, either a 135 f2.8 or 105 f2.5

(for film use, only), in either AI or AIS mounts. I've perused past

threads, and am wondering what those who have actual experiences with

both the AI and AIS versions of these lenses presently think regarding

any possible differences in optical performance.

 

Also, if there IS an improvement due to the possibly more modern

coatings in the AIS versions, would using a high quality multi-coated

filter on an AI version offset this possible shortcoming?

[vivek iyer]

Improved optical performance in AIS Nikkors over AI versions?

 

 

No.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With the 105mm F2.5 the AIS variant has a different focus helix, redesigned to add a captive lens hood. The more modern Gauss variant happened about 1971; and happened way before the AI lens even. Later it got multicoating in the pre AI variant Nikkor PC, then it became a AI version; then a AIS version with the captive lens hood. Somewhere in the AIS run an enhanced multicoating was used. In an older thread somebody mentioned the non AIS variants creep in focus, here I have found just the opposite. The pre 1971 variant is a Sonnar lens design, same as the Nikon ragefinder, Leica Thread mounts Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 of 1/2 century ago. The Sonnar lens was well known as a portrait lens well before the Gauss variant came out in 1971. The newer version is slighly sharper at close 3 meter distances, and has a larger rear opening, better illumination way off axis wide open at F2.5. All the 105mm Nikkors are great, even the 105mm F4 preset telephoto; or speedster 105mm F1.8 AIS. <BR><BR>There is a rare Series I Vivitar 105mm f2.5 in Nikon mount too that is great. Even the cheapie 105mm off brand lenses are usually decent too.

[henricus]

There is no difference between the AI and AIS. It is the same Gauss type formula since they changed it around 1972. Some of the early AI 105/2.5 lens were released without multi-coating. They are designated with a P. You can read more about Nikkor lenses at <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">Bjorn Rorslett</a>, where I got this information. <p>There is an older NON-AI lens that was a Sonnar based formula. I bought one and had it converted to AI. I can't speak to the 135/3.8.

[richard_cochran]

I don't believe there's any optical difference, but the AIS version of the 105 f/2.5 features a built-in sliding hood. That makes using the hood very convenient.

<p>

<cite>Also, if there IS an improvement due to the possibly more modern coatings in the AIS versions, would using a high quality multi-coated filter on an AI version offset this possible shortcoming? </cite>

<p>

There isn't a difference in the coatings, but if there were, adding a filter to the front wouldn't help. The coatings reduce reflections at each surface of each element. If you add a filter, that adds two more air-glass surfaces with two more reflections. A good filter with excellent coatings will minimize the reflections on its own surfaces, but it can't do anything to reduce the reflections on the existing surfaces of the lens.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Henry; the mulitcoated version of the 105mm F2.5 came out about in 1973. I bought one NEW then; and have bought over 100 of them for converions for a movie camera maker. This Nikkor-PC added the C for multicoating, and ALL lenses made after 1973 have been multicoated. Spreading the myths that that some AI are not multicoated is wrong. The P marking goes back 1/2 century ago, it means penta for five elements.

[henricus]

Thanks Kelly, good to know. As I said I got the information elsewhere.

[kelly_flanigan1]

One of the best values in Nikkors if you use older bodies is a 105mm pre AI Nikkor PC that is multicoated, and the modern Guass design. I got yet another with Nikkormat FTn for only 65 dollars for both.

[luis triguez]

"The P marking goes back 1/2 century ago" Two examples of that non AI lens. Both with out filter.<div></div>

[luis triguez]

closer

[kelly_flanigan1]

Even the old single coated Sonnar versions of the Nikkor are fun to use. Here is a Tulane student section football sequence shot with a Leica M3 at 1/250 second wide open at F2.5 , using the Nikkor-P 10.5cm F2.5 using Fuji Superia 800 from Walmart, processed at Walgreens.<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-432.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-431.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-430.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-429.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-428.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-427.jpg"><BR><BR>croped section<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-444.jpg">

[kelly_flanigan1]

As an aside here is the ancient rangefinder version, it has a tripod socket too! and same 52mm filter, same 52mm hood as todays snap one AI 105mm F2.5 hood. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-200.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/tripods-201.jpg">

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is the non Guass version, the single coated Sonnar @F2.5 1/250 second; Fuji Superia; Leica M3<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-406.jpg">

[jeff_z.]

Thanks! I greatly appreciate the high quality responses. I recalled someone saying a while ago that they felt that one of the AIS lenses seemed to have more contrast than the same lens' AI variant, but can't recall what specific lens they were referring to- I suppose that contributed to my query.

 

I'm a bit struck by how little the 135 f2.8 was mentioned. It is a focal length presently lacking in my lens collection, and I can't help but wonder why no one seems to have mentioned it. I realize that many think it a bit long for portraiture, but I wonder if there are any who do like and use it? I would also be using it for landscape/nature work. While I have the AF 70-210 f4.0, and like it very much for action and handheld situations, it lacks a tripod collar, consequently it's not as handy on the tripod, given its length and size.

 

I presently have the AF 35-105 f3.5-4.5D also, which seems to give excellent performance. Back to the 105, I've used my 35-105 for portraiture, and while the slower aperture rules out throwing the background completely out of focus, other than that, it seems to perform well. Would the quality of the Gauss 105s be noticeably better than the zoom in most circumstances? I realize that the max. 2.5 aperture by itself would be a nice advantage. Thanks again for the great info., and especially for the posted images; I will take another look at them.

[henricus]

Kelly,<p>If the first release of these lenses was simply marked P and the later ones PC, couldn't it be that the first were uncoated as the link states?

[henricus]

My Nikkor 105/2.5 non-ai (Sonnar)<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4263274-lg.jpg">

[david_h._hartman]

<em>I recalled someone saying a while ago that they felt

that one of the AIS lenses seemed to have more contrast than the

same lens' AI variant, but can't recall what specific lens they

were referring to- I suppose that contributed to my query.

--Jeff Z.<br>

</em><br>

There are a some AIS Nikkors with Super Integrated Coating. I own

two, a 28/2.0 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS. The one direct comparison I

can make is with the 28/2.0 AIS w/ and w/o. This lens is very low

in flare and its most difficult to get it to display ghost.

Its an ideal lens for shooting directly into the sun. Id

like to compare a 24/2.8 AIS with and without Super IC as my non-Super

IC 24/2.8 is less than super in flare and ghosts characteristics.

The Super IC lenses have less colorful coatings and will produce

less colorful ghosts.<br>

<br>

The 135/2.8 AIS doesnt have a great reputation probably

based on the somewhat poor performance of earlier non-compact

versions. I owned one of those early ones but only over night. I

traded it for a 105/2.5 Nikkor-P Auto straight across, no cash.

Very lucky! The 105/2.5 Nikkor-P Auto was a great lens.<br>

<br>

The 135/2.8 AIS has very similar bokeh characteristics to the 105/2.5

AIS and others of its optical design. These lenses sacrfice a

little image sharpness wide open and at close focus distance (both

togetther) for mellow unfocused background rendition. The blur

background details of the 135mm will be larger compared to the

105mm. Ive compared the 135/2.8 and 105/2.5 AIS directly

but only on a D2H. All I can say is they perform beautifully on

that camera. I'm not concerned about the 135/2.8 AIS' performance

on film or digital.<br>

<br>

I do not use the built in hood on either the 105/2.5 or 135/2.8

AIS. The HS-8 or alternately HS-14 gives better protection

against stray light. The built in hood on the 135/2.8 AIS is

wobbly. The one on the 105/2.5 might add a slightly to light fall

off at f/2.5~2.8. The flare and ghost characteristics of these

lenses is quite good and far better than lenses like the 80~200/2.8D

ED AF and 80~200/4.0 AIS.<br>

<br>

In a telephoto I prefer the AIS over the AI for the faster,

smoother focus charateristics. The reverse is true for wide

angles where the AI has a longer focus throw and more graduation

on the distance and DOF scales. In most cases the AI and AIS lens

have the same optical formula. The AI lenses usually sell for

less. If you don't have a preference then buy the AI version.<br>

<br>

The 105/2.5 is ideal for head and shoulders portraits and candids

while the 135/2.8 is best for tight head shots. This is a matter

of the distance from subject to lens and social norms. We find

the perspective of about 2m (5~7) most familiar as its

a polite conversational distance. If you want a lens for shooting

people or want a lens with excellent flare and ghost resistance I

recommend both. If I had to chose just one (Oh, dont make

me do that!) it would be the 105/2.5 AIS.<br>

<br>

My advice is buy both, compare them and then keep both.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

PS: the 135/2.8 AIS on the DX formats covers the place a 200mm

lens held on 35mm film. If you dont have the money for the

135/2.0D DC AF or want a small, light lens for digital the 135/2.8

AIS is a good call.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Henry, lens coating grew alot after WW2. The post war Nikkors were coated, but just had the greek letter key code for the number of elements, thus a five element lens was a P, or a six element lens like the 5cm F2 a S. Later many of these later 1940's and early 1950's lenses got the added C for single coating. Kodak did the same thing, many war and post war lenses were coated, with no added matking, later they added "Lumenized" or the circle L symbol. Later Nikon dropped the the C marking for single coating, but then added it back again in the early 1970's for multicoating. When computer optical design dropped radically in price in the mid 1970's, many older designs were rehashed, with the number of elments reduced, Thus Nikon dropped the greek code of P for five elements, S of septum for six elements, plus the C tag for multicoating.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Henry; all the 10.5 cm F2.5 Nikkors for the Nikon rangefinder and LTM are single coated. All the 105mm F2.5 in Sonnar variant for the Nikon F are single coated too. The first GAUSS 105mm Nikkors were single coated too. The later variant about 1973 has multicoating and the Gauss design and were marked PC, the C meaning multicoating. My 50mm F1.4 Nikkor SC of 1973 has multicoating, the same optics as the year before Nikkor S. <BR><BR>

[jeff_z.]

Dave,

 

Your experiences, thoughts, and advice are very helpful- I really appreciate it. Yes, as for purchasing both, I'm afraid that you're definitely right; that is the only really correct choice!

 

Thanks, Jeff

[ky2]

Great to have you back, David.

[dj_soroka]

Henry -

 

Bjorn's link is rite, you misinterpreted it and misused a term.

 

The initial lenses from Nikon had a letter designating the number of elements. This, for the 105 f/2.5, was "P" (I think meaning 5 lens elements). These lenses were single coated.

 

Like Kelly says, when multi-coating was introduced by Nikon, a C was inscribed after the letter indicating the number of elements. So, a P C 105 f/2.5 is a multi-coated lens.

 

The P C designation was dropped by Nikon around 1975, when they introduced a streamlined look to their lenses, referred to as "K" types, that had multi-coating very close to the Ai type multi-coating that began in 1977.

 

You mentioned that Ai lenses were not multi-coated. They were, as had Nikon lenses for up to five years already. Some non-Ai lenses were not multi-coated. For Lenses prior to the "K" type with the rubberized focusing grip, a lens with a metal focusing grip would have had a "C" designation if it was multi-coated versus single coated.

[henricus]

What a great surprise. I thought these old lenses had no coating. I also have a 50/1.4 ai'd that is an "S" and I always thought it was not coated.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Henry; some older lenses dont have front coatings. The coatings are now on a mess of old shirts and old lens clothes! :)

[rjm photo]

Depends on what lens your are speaking of Vivek....you cannot make a blanket statement like that. The 28mm AIS F2.8 and the 28mm AI F2.8 are different formulations...the AIS version is the superior with regard to optical performance.

 

At the Nikon Links .Com site you will find several lens evaluations by highly regarded reviewers who report such a case with the example I have given.