105mm AI f/2.5

kari_karhu1 · March 24, 2008

Thanks, Joseph

(This is going to deviate from the original topic. Jonathan, sorry for that.)

I've also used Cokin rings but, instead of glue, I've used three small bolts to keep the rings

together. You must, of course, drill the holes very precisely so that any pair of rings can be

paired. This (or gluing) is also a handy way to mate lenses that have (slightly) different

filter-thread diameters.

Yep, BR-6 would be fine but how to couple it with a DSLR's shutter release?

Maybe I 'll make, eventually, a waterhouse aperture between the two Cokin rings but for

now I'm using the outer lens wide open (less vignetting - I think) and use the inner lens's

aperture for DOF control.

But what about focusing? Should the outer lens be set at its optimal focus and use the

inner lens's ring only for actual focusing? I assume the optimal focus for a 50 mm normal

lens is at infinity.

And, off-topic, I've also used the same logic when attaching a lens on bellows. Therefore,

I've set a 55 macro at 1:10. But I really don't know what's the best procedure when a lens

is reversed on bellows.

lex_jenkins · March 24, 2008

Albert, the aperture shape has little or no effect on bokeh. Aperture shape primarily affects the shape of the out of focus highlights. Bokeh describes the overall aesthetics of the entire out of focus area of a photograph, not just the highlights.

I've owned lenses with perfectly round diaphragm shapes yet only mediocre bokeh, nothing special. That includes medium format TLRs I've owned.

I've used lenses with fewer diaphragm blades that produced obviously multi-sided highlights, yet had beautiful bokeh. And vice versa - lenses with both ugly highlights and harsh, doubling or tripling of edges, such as tree branches, flower stems, building edges, etc.

If aperture shape and rounded highlights alone defined good bokeh, there would be universal agreement that mirror lenses offered perfect bokeh.

kelly_flanigan1 · March 25, 2008

There are only two optical versions; the older Sonnar and newer Gauss version that came out about 1971. There is single coating; multicoating; and later slighty altered multicoating. The lens came out in for rangefinder cameras in the 1950's; with mounts for Nikon RF; Exakta slr and Leica thread mount for rangefinders. The terminology of sonnar and gauss versions was used in the Nikon school when the newer version came out; and also in the photo magazines. Sonnar single coated for Nikon RF/LTM & Exakta slr Sonnar single coated fof Nikon F Gauss design single coated Gauss design multicoated Gauss design enhanced multicoating. AI is a metering feature; it has nothing to do with the optical design or lens coating. The lens at the top of the page is the LATEST optical design; with the first multicoating; with NO AI upgrade factory adapter. Xenotar is a trademark of Schneider; its abit goofy to rename the optical design that Nikon called it back in 1971; with a competitors name.

kelly_flanigan1 · March 25, 2008

Part of the 1970's trend was to follow Olympus; thus lenses were made lighter; with smaller parts; rubber rings added; the lense made smaller. Sometimes the newer versions were even glued instead of screwed. Some lenses got closer focusing distances such as the 50mm F1.4 The phrase "gauss type lens" is in Optical engineering textbooks from 1921.

kelly_flanigan1 · March 25, 2008

joseph_wisniewski · March 25, 2008

Hi Kari.

I've also screwed rings together, but when teaching, I usually demonstrate epoxy, because there are some folks who can't, or won't drill.

Once you're drilling holes, making provision for waterhouse stops is easy. I'm going to do a series of pics of how to cobble up an adapter with drilled holes and a spacer with a slot for the waterhouse stops. Give it a try, you'll find using the rear aperture for control really exagerrates aberrations. Remember, the front lens isn't just a strong "diopter", it's the lens doing the most work in this "partnership".

And, on that note, back to our regularly scheduled program.

For coupled lenses, it doesn't matter how you set a front 50mm, because that lens is unit focusing, the entire lens moves as one assembly, and if you're coupled to the filter ring, all adjusting focus does is slides the lens barrel back and fourth on a stationary lens. Some of the wides have "floating elements", aka "close range correction". Set those to infinity. You'll typically get the best image quality if you also set the rear lens to infinity, and focus by moving the camera using a focusing rail, or moving the subject using a focusing stage.

The front lens is transforming a plane about 40mm from the rear element (where the film normally goes) to a plane very far from the front element. The rear lens is transforming the "very far" plane back to a plane 40mm from its rear element. Most lenses do this best at infinity. It's possible some lenses can "negotiate" a better compromise with the rear lens focused at a different distance.

On a bellows, if the lens has some type of close focusing correction, and you have the lens mounted forward, set the lens to its closese focus distance. You're extending it past the range of correction it was designed for, it has the best chance with its correction turned "all the way up". The 55mm f2.8 has CRC, the f3.5 doesn't. The 60mm f2.8 has "CRC gone wild".

Most macro lenses perform best reversed on a bellows. In that case, for a CRC lens, you set the lens's focus distance to the reciprocol of the magnification. (Of course, that means you have to either calculate, measure, or eyeball the magnification). So if you've got a 55mm f2.8 reversed and extended to 3x, set the lens to 1:3.

Now, to fire the camera with a BR-6, I use a Nikon AR-10 dual cable release, with one mechanical release for the BR-6 and one electrical release for the camera. It has the old 2 pin (MD-15, N8008, etc) connector, so I use a Nikon MC-25 2 pin to 10 pin adapter for the D2X and D3.

Definitely get these things used, they're insanely priced new ;)

And Kelly, if you happen to be reading this, good points about the lenses, although I've never perceived the newer rubber collar designs as being cheaper, and never saw glue except in series E. But on a more serious note: there's no way the Klingons could oppress the Metrons. Besides, I like the way Klingochrome renders the reds, it's the very best film for battle.

kari_karhu1 · March 25, 2008

Thanks, Joseph, a lot.

I'm looking forward seeing your pictures of waterhouse stops.

I have a box full of broken Nikkors that I got for free. I tried to find one whose aperture

system could be recycled but it seems they are so tightly integrated with the optical cores

that this seems not the way to go.

All waterhouse stops are circular? This means nicer OOF highlights?

Thank for correcting me on setting the focus of the front lens. But, then, it can be used

for focusing instead of or in addition to the back lens, right?

I agree in that most lenses do best at infinity but maybe macros are different.

I also have a box full of Nikon rings and stuff - but no BR-6, AR-10, MC-25...

Kari

BernardMiller · March 25, 2008

Ummm, this thread has sort of digressed. But on the original point: I found the 105/2.5 unusable on a D70 when I first went digital. But I've gone back to using it now that I've gotten a D300--on which it is actually possible to focus manually--for portraits, even if it is a bit long. It is stunningly sharp...once again. I can only imagine how spectacular it would be on a D3. For anything $200 or less, if the lens is in good shape (and it's one of the more modern versions), it's still a steal. Even if you may not be able to realise its value fully right away.

joseph_wisniewski · March 26, 2008

Bernard, of course the tread has digressed. Digression is the better part of valour. This aside, I agree, a more modern 105mm f2.5 is a great lens to have, especially if you ave a large working space or work outdoors frequently.

Kari, yes, traditional waterhouse stops are circular. This really doesn't help macro all that much, because circular stops only contribute a nice edge to specular (small, bright) highlights. The bigger problem in macro bokeh is the overall distribution of light between the center and edge of the out of focus circles, and that's purely a function of the design of the two lenses.

You won't have much luck with the aperture mechanism of a scrap lens. Any lens that lets you focus wide open and stops down when you shoot has a "leaf shutter" aperture mechanism, and you will find that near impossible to move from one lens to another. Rangefinder lenses, certain old macro lenses (like the macro (not "micro") Nikkors, Zeiss Luminars, Leitz Photars) and the 28mm and 35mm PC Nikkors have a different mechanism, called an "iris diaphragm" stops down to a much nicer circle, and is a self contained unit, very easy to remove from the lens. You can get irises from Edmund Optics, but they're not cheap.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productID=2518

The NT32-618 ($49, "standard" grade, with blue spring steel blades) or NT57-583 ($55, "high performance grade, with burnished steel blades) have a 53mm outer diameter, just right to sandwich between two P-rings, can open to a 37mm max diameter (a good match to the pupils of a 50mm f1.4 and 105mm f2.5) and have 16 blades, which is so close to round you won't be able to tell the difference. Modern lens companies brag about having 7 or 9 blades, which just shows you what we had to give up to get wide open metering.

There is a honking big iris, the NT57-585, with an 82mm outer diameter that will completely fill the area between two p-rings, can open up to a 60mm aperture, and is total overkill for this at $115. Watch the big irises, for reasons unknown at large sizes the "standard" costs more than the "high performance" series.

The waterhouse stops, on the other hand, can be built almost free, they're just not as easy to adjust. To stop down, you slide out one card, slide in another.

joseph_wisniewski · March 26, 2008

As far as focusing, no, the front lens will not focus, at all. Even when you have a lens with "close focusing correction", adjusting the focus won't change the focus distance, it will just correct the lens better to match the rear lens. So, if you have a 20mm f2.8 (with CRC) reversed on the 105mm f2.8 and you focus the 105mm to 6 feet, you'd also set the 20mm to 6 feet, just to get the additional correction.

But you will find that focusing the rear lens really doesn't buy you much of anything, and the actual focusing should be done by moving the camera back and forth on a focusing rail.

Let's go back to our 50mm example for a minute. When you focus a 105mm f2.5 Xenotar version from infinity to its closest focus of 1m, the lens (well, if you want to get picky, the "rear node") moves from 105mm from the image plane to 118.6mm from the image plane, a whopping 13.6mm. (1/(1/1000mm-1/105mm))

The coupled 50mm and 105mm lens has an effective focal length of 33.9mm (1/(1/50mm+1/105mm)). This means the magnification of the coupled lens changes from 2.1x (105mm/33.9mm-1) to 2.5x (118.6mm/33.9mm-1). Hardly enough change in magnification to get excited about. The distance from camera to subject imcreases 11mm as you focus the 105mm from infinity to 1m, again, hardly useful.

Read the focusing rail thread, here, and ignore the comments from "Mary, Mary, quite contrary".

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OqJf

One of those $50 generic rails will get you started.

wizfaq

joseph_wisniewski · March 26, 2008

"Part of the 1970's trend was to follow Olympus; thus lenses were made lighter; with smaller parts;..." (elipses mine)

But this was not one of those cases. Roland Vink's lovely Nikon lens database (better than the tables in the "Nikon Compendium", the "System Handbook", and the "Master Handbook" all put together) paints a different picture.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

The Sonnar version (1959-1971) weighed in at 370g. All five versions of the Xenotar, from the lobed metal collar versions (1971-1975) to the rubber collar versions (1974-1981, including a few months of overlap with the lobed version), to the built in hood Ai-S (1981-2005) weigh in at 435g.

kari_karhu1 · March 26, 2008

Joseph,

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge on experimental photography!

I'm ordering a 70 mm iris from Edmund Optics since I really like to have the 105+50

combo for extraordinary shallow DOF macros with nice bokeh.

But what about 200 mm Micro that has a 62 mm thread? The 82 mm iris has a 60 mm max

aperture. But which (wide angle) lens should I use in front of that?

Do you, by any means, know these lenses that I rescued from a litter bin of a hospital:

Rodenstock-Heligon 1:1,4 f=70mm

Schneider-Kreutznach Xenar 1:4,5(210

De Oude Delft Rayxar E50/0,75

P. Angenieux F 50 1:0.95 TYPE M1

Are they of any use?

The last one, only, has an aperture ring and none has any means fro focusing. The

registering distance may be a serious problem for all with D3 or D300 but may I could

offer one of my Olympus C5050Z's.

Schneider-Kreutznach Componon 1:5,6/150 sits on my PB-4 but its seems to lack

contrast.

As for the focusing rails, I'd like to have one with an integrated Arca style dovetail on the

bottom (and maybe a clamp on top). I think Novoflex once had such. Still available from

somewhere?

Thanks!

Kari

joseph_wisniewski · March 26, 2008

I often use my 50mm f1.4 and 20mm f2.8 in front of the 200mm. The ratios on those (4:1 and 10:1) are so large you really can get by just controlling aperture on the front lens, adding a stop between the lenses is much more a trick you use for small ratios, like 2.1:1 with a 105mm and a 50mm, or whatever we get with an 85mm and a 50mm. That's when I use the BR-6, AR-10, MC-25 setup.

I have three ways of setting up my camera bag. It only holds two "big things" (70-200mm f2.8, 200mm f4, and PB-4 bellows with 16, 25, 40, and 65mm Luminars and Photars) at a time. So there are missions that get the 200mm f4 and the bellows and lenses, and missions that don't get the bellows, but get the coupling gear to put the normal and wides on the teles. This involves a lot of changing stuff, but gets me from 1x (just the 200) to 2x (50 on 105), 4x (50 on 200 or 28 on 105), 5-6x (20 on 105 or 28 on 200), and 10x (20 on 200).

Good God, those are some fun toys you found in the trash.

If a Componon is lacking contrast that means it's either a really, really old uncoated one, it's full of fungus, chemically hazed, or just needs a good cleaning. You do have to mount it in a light-tight way (screw adapters together, not just hold it in place) and it may have a "light duct" for illuminating its aperture numbers that you need to block to use it for macro.

The other lenses (from copiers, I'd guess) are useless at infinity, but can make some truly bizar macro lenses. The person you want to seek out on photo.net is Vivek Iyer, who has mounted many such lenses, with and without bellows.

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=504727

Do not worry about the lack of aperture adjustment, the only reason for playing with a CFL ("crazy fast lens") is for ultrashallow DOF, so you're always shooting it wide open. If you took that 50mm f0.75 and stopped it down to f2.8, it would not perform anywhere near as well as a Nikon 55mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor, and it probably would be beat by a plain old 50mm f1.4 stopped down to 2.8 and extended. Personally, I don't own any CFLs, for the few occasions I've needed that look I've coupled a pair of 50mm f1.4 (Nikon on the camera, Pentax Super Takumar in front).

Novoflex still makes the "medium" rails Castle-L (which I have) and Castle-Q. Both of these have the entire length of the lower section of the rail machined in a precise Arca dovetail. The L has a Novoflex round quick release, which I attach to an Acratech "double speed" Arca clamp. The Q has a machined in Arca clamp, but it's set up for RRS style camera plates and is sideways to a lens plate so I can't use it with my 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor and PN-11 tube, hence the Acratech plate mounted the right way.

Both are available from B&H, as is the heavy duty rail (also with lower Arca dovetail) and the mini (no dovetail, but very compact). They cost more now than when I ordered mine. Order now, before the US dollar drops even farther against the Euro and the prices go up even more.

kelly_flanigan1 · March 27, 2008

Abit off topic but worth mentioning; with our process camera we only used the waterhouse stop feature for NON CIRCULAR stops; since the lenses the apo ronars have an iris too. The square; diamond; or triangular stops are used for certain line screen work. Here I have bought many dozens of 105mm F2.5 Nikkors; but only own less than a dozen now. The purchase were for a motion picture camera telephotos lens; where the lens guts were/are used. Here what matters is performance and only using what is required for retro fitting; thus newer lens with glue might not the easiest retrofit. The Schneider-Kreutznach Componon 135mm F5.6 here is used with a phase one 4x5 scan back for artwork and has extreme contast. The newer version of 105mm F2.5 i8s a modified gauss lens; not a xenotar. The xenotar is trademark thats not Nikon; but of a competitor. Gauss is a lens design; Xenotar is trademark. Hell what not call it a Hannah Montana lens and cause more confusion?; or many the Al Gore lens since he invented it?:) In the Los Angeles area the cheaper rubber rings sometimes become a mess of goo when tthey finally get ruined by ozone; BUT it depend too on when built; like the rubber batches varied. Some I have used were like sticky candy; others still ok. Due to feel good about the planet stuff some greases got changed over the decades; and sometimes some newer grease wandering issues than older lenses.

joseph_wisniewski · March 28, 2008

Hey Kelly,

The point I was trying to make is that there are hundreds of lens designs that have one or more Gauss groups in them. Some of them are quite distinctive. Refering to it as I did, as "Xenotar type" makes it easy to understand what the basic design is, and what the characteristics are.

Nikon themselves frequently refer to it as a "Xenotar-type", in addition to describing it as a "Gauss type" in other places.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n05_e.htm

"Gauss is a lens design; Xenotar is trademark"

Sonnar is a trademark, you don't have any problem refering to the earlier 105 by that name.

LA air melting the rubber rings? Yuk. Are you still on that coast?

kelly_flanigan1 · March 29, 2008

Josepho; I am just using the Sonnar term since thats what the first 105mm design has been called for the last 1/2 century. Its was called this too when the newer modified gauss version came out about 1971 also; and back in the Nikon school then. I really am no fan for reinventing new terms for old stuff. If you like the xenotar trademark for newer 105mm; why not go back 100 years and use carl ziess's Planar term then? In optics folks call Tessar design a tessar even if its not a zeiss product. I just thought it was odd to have used Nikon F since 1962 and never heard the newer 105mm called a xenotar. The 100 and 105mm focal lengths for 35mm cameras are often good lenses; even with the aftermarket brands. The focal length is short enough that ED glass is not required; its also long enough that the angular coverage is not alot; thus off axis correction is often good. Even the ancient 105mm F4 Nikkor-T preset triplet works great here; its a great portrait lens too. I live in the left quakey coast and deep south too. One has very dry air; the other abit swampish. The LA basin area still has a decent amount of smog alerts; ozone attacks rubber products. In thousand oaks there was a major traffic snarl the other day; a major mess; even the back way over the Conejo grade was a mess; but with no humidity like the deep south.

kari_karhu1 · March 29, 2008

Hi Joseph,

I got yesterday a diaphragm from England and next week when I get the other necessary

parts, I'll construct the 105 + 50 mm combo. Photos taken with a tape-together version

showed that this is the way to go.

Since this is rather old of a thread and our sub-theme is quite off-topic, I think I'll start a

new thread when I have some results to show. Hope, you and others will find it!

Kari

joseph_wisniewski · March 31, 2008

Josepho?

Anyway, Kelly, I have no quibbles about calling the forst 105mm a "Sonnar type". It looks like a copy of a Zeiss Sonnar design, and Zeiss never really distorted the term "Sonnar" so you're not quite sure what it meant.

I wouldn't call the later Nikon 105 a "Planar type", because that would be confusing for two reasons. First, Zeiss applies the label "Planar" to several dissimilar designs, so "Planar type" is a vague term, at best. Second, the Nikon 105 bears no resemblance to any of those Zeiss Planar variations.

The original Rudolph "Planar" is a very specific configuration, a symmetrical pair of three element, non Gauss units. Since then, Zeiss has diluted the term, putting the Planar name on preturbed (slightly asymmetrical) versions of the original design with increased back focus, as well as pretty much any nearly symmetrical 6, 7, or 8 element design, whether the front and rear units are Randolph's original plano-convex, or Gauss's meniscus pairs. Pretty much every 50mm f2, 1.8, and 1.4 normal Nikon has ever made has "paid tribute" to one variation or another of a Zeiss Planar, but I typically don't refer to the Nikon normals as "Planar type". But someone could say "Planar type" to me, and I would have some idea what they were talking about. I would probably ask them to clarify, if it were important to the conversation.

So, in general, just my personal interpretaions, I will say:

"Gauss" for a single Gauss (a pair of meniscus groups, whether or not one or both groups are simple lenses or achromats).

"Double Gauss" for an actual double Gauss, two symmetrical or nearly symmetrical Gauss units.

For anything other than those two cases, I seek a more specific and descriptive term.

"Planar" for a real, Zeiss branded Planar, regardless of whether it is fully symmetrical or preturbed, whether or not the groups are Gauss, and whether or not the original 3 element units have the first meniscus split into two lenses for the 7 or 8 element varients.

"Xenotar type" for a lens that has a Gauss followed by a simple achromat, which may or may not be a Gauss.

"Sonnar type", "Tessar type", etc. for lenses resembling those particular, distinctive designs.

And I nevr say "Gauss type", because it's such a vague term. All it tells you is that, somewhere in the lens, there is a unit that corresponds to a Gauss. It's a huge umbrella: as I mentioned earlier, a real Zeiss Planar may or may not be a double Gauss, both versions of the Nikon 105 are technically Gauss designs (Nikon's version of a Sonnar is one big Gauss, the front being a meniscus triplet with the front element split, the rear a simple meniscus, their Xenotar has a more conventonal two element meniscus with a split front element) as well as half the normal lenses in existance. Most zoom lenses contain one or more Gauss elements, but we don't refer to them as "Gauss types", either. Basically, you can put all the lenses in the world into two bins, those that contain one or more Gauss units, and those that don't, and label the first bin "Gauss type", but this will tell you nothing useful.

The 105 not only isn't symmetrical, but the rear unit isn't a Gauss, as the rear element is a double convex, not a meniscus lens. I don't think the rear unit qualifies as a split of a simple meniscus. So it's not a single Gauss, and it's not a double Gauss. But it does bear a striking resemblance to either a Xenotar or a Biometar, and the Xenotar is both a more common term and easier to pronounce.

Now, maybe one could define "Gauss type" as a lens where the front unit is a Gauss, and the image characteristics of a Gauss design dominate the overall lens, instead of "any lens containing a Gauss unit anywhere in the lens". But even this interpretation of "Gauss type" doesn't apply too well to the later 105mm, since it doesn't draw like any common tuning of a single or double Gauss.

Again, just my take, and I tend towards a precision that often matters only to me and annoys those around me.

Take it easy.

joseph_wisniewski · March 31, 2008

Kari,

I'm looking forward to seeing your coupler with iris, and some of the shots.

Sign In

105mm AI f/2.5

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in