Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais vs. AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D

[studio460]

<p>Now, onto a new debate! A well-considered thread, started a few days a go, discussed other short-teles for use as portrait lenses, specifically for use on the Nikon D800E. Since I also happen to own the Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais manual-focus lens, it just occurred to me that this would be an obvious choice to compare with the often-discussed, AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D. I'll shoot some tests of both as soon as I get a chance . . .</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I'm sorry, but if I remember correctly, (and I could be wrong) that was a terrible thread. Unbearably long, it wasn't a discussion, but had the same person posting again and again. The poor OP ended up with the same opinion as when he started, in spite of what anyone said. It could be a different thread, and I apologize if it was. I didn't see a link.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Was that me? Sorry, Hector. I talk too much (and I'm very grateful for the feedback of others on whether the behaviour of my 135 DC was "normal"). I have no knowledge on the 105 f/1.8, so I'll keep my mouth shut this time.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Ralph, I admit that after having obliged your questions at length, I was somewhat disappointed to see MTF graphs quoted back to me. </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>If you have them both why not shoot first and then post your images?</p>

<p>And don't use dxo with it's automatic sharpening and other enhancements. It's no good if you want to compare lenses. You want neutral unprocessed images for comparisons. And shoot something resolution demanding like a newspaper or a letter from far away and put the camera on a tripod.</p>

<p>Best if you can move the camera slightly back and forward so you can focus and then shoot a series of images at varying distances and then pick out the sharpest one. Otherwise you will just test the precision of your focus ability and the cameras AF abilities. Live view is not really good enough for testing. Actually using your eyes is not really good for analyzing the results either but I guess we have to draw the line somewhere. Real testing is done with very careful alignment and lighting/exposure of slanted edge targets and software like imatest for analysis. </p>

<p> </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>BTW, I saw the MTF charts in the other thread but you need to know what they show and how they are done if you are going to use them. They are actually almost irrelevant for testing lenses on a D800. And Nikon uses theoretical MTF charts that are calculated and not measured from any real lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ralph and Hector, are the two of you referring to this thread, also started by Ralph?<br>

<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bJz9">DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D or AF-S 24-120mm f/4.0 VR for D800E portraits?</a></p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have the 105 f/1.8 AI-S and found it to be a good enough lens for what I needed it for. Usable at f/1.8 which was what I needed. I used it for Jumping and Barrel racing in very poorly illuminated arenas. In each of those events I was able to prefocus and not have to worry about a moving target. Stop the lens down to f/5.6 and it is just as good as anything else out there.<br>

105mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 on a D300<br>

<p>Same shot at f/4<br>

Maybe later tonight I will shoot some resolution charts with my D4.</p>

<p>I do have to ask Ralph.. Are you just trying to make conversation? If you have these two lenses why are you asking and not telling?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>And don't use dxo with it's automatic sharpening and other enhancements. It's no good if you want to compare lenses. You want neutral unprocessed images for comparisons.</blockquote>

 

<p>Out of interest, why? Surely the important thing is how good the results you can achieve with a lens might be. If your lens suffers, for example, from LCA, it may appear poor when viewed unprocessed, but the aberrations may be easily correctable in software and the result may be superior to a lens which looks better without processing - camera makers are deliberately designing lenses that trade LCA and distortion for absolute sharpness on the expectation that software (or firmware) is part of the workflow. Obviously, if you're comparing, you have to see what the best you can achieve for each lens is (in the amount of time you're expecting to spend as part of your normal workflow). If you purely want to compare the optics, you should obviously bypass any undue electronic processing, but it seems to me that doing so makes the result more theoretical than practical. This may, of course, mean that one photographer's ideal lens is another photographer's paperweight, but that's always been the case.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Back to the issue at hand, has anyone ever used both these lenses? We are talking about an AF v. a MF lens, among other things.</p>

<p>I would like to have the AF at times. Apart from being slightly faster at maximum aperture, is there anything the Ai-S lens can do that the DC version cannot do? They are both solidly built, I am sure, and so my questions are finally about image quality.</p>

<p>I also hear from some that the DC is hard to learn to get right, whereas others say that it is a breeze.</p>

<p>Whom should we believe?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>@Andrew G<br>

You should test what you need to test. As you said yourself if you want to compare optics you should avoid any undue processing. As well as remove any other variable that can influence the result.</p>

<p>If you want to compare something else you should do a test for that instead. Looking at 100% crops for instance is not interesting unless 100% crops is what the client is buying. If you for instance are delivering prints or shoot for publication or whatever you should do the prints at the size needed and compare those to each other. I have a 24" roll printer in my studio and I think every serious shooter should have one, just for the educational value.</p>

<p>When using a camera with a lens if the photographer for instance can't focus the manual focus lens accurately enough or if the screwdriver lens can't get the AF right every time compared to an AF-S lens that would affect the end result but it wouldn't say anything about the optics.</p>

<p>One lens that I've used for headshots is the manual focus 105mm f2.5 which I think is good. The manual focus 105mm f4 micro also seems bitingly sharp at portrait distances.</p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Bebu, I think we'd all still be interested in your comparisons, even if this thread was a bit premature.<br>

I don't have the AF 105mm f/2, but I think the Ai-S 105mm f/1.8 was one of the best purchases I've made. It was also worth the little extra money and effort to fit it with a Dandelion chip; allowing trap focus and "plug 'n' play" compatibility with my DSLRs. Comparing the f/1.8 lens to the Ai-S 105mm f/2.5, there's really not a lot in it at like-for-like apertures - except for that one whole stop extra light gathering ability!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Pete. From what you said, I still think it sounds as though the lenses should be tested in Ralph's normal workflow, rather than without any available digital enhancement - it's the end result that matters, hence my confusion about purely testing the optics.<br />

<br />

One reason I got my 135 DC was the awkwardness of relying on manual focus with my 135 f/2.8 - but then I was after candids, not staged images, so AF helped. I don't know if that sample point is relevant to Ralph. I envy RJ's trap focus ability.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Well Andrew, I'm not sure what Ralph is after. Personally I like to first test to see what the equipment is capable of under optimal circumstances which means tripod, perfect focus, controlled exposure, slanted edge targets and using imatest for analysis. Then I worry about how to get as good results as possible during actual shooting. </p>

<p> </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Andrew, no, that wasn't you, never. I'm sorry you thought that.<br>

Shun, yes. </p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Hector said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but if I remember correctly, (and I could be wrong) that was a terrible thread. Unbearably long, it wasn't a discussion, but had the same person posting again and again. The poor OP ended up with the same opinion as when he started, in spite of what anyone said.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was me.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Luke said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, I admit that after having obliged your questions at length, I was somewhat disappointed to see MTF graphs quoted back to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look, I appreciate your efforts on my behalf, but I have only my limited (and, admittedly, flawed) testing at hand, and the Nikon MTF data. But every time I asked on what information you based your conclusions, you never responded. My goal here is not to argue or to bore people to death with my lengthy, meandering comments; my goal is to ask others to help vet my own conclusions. But, without any sources cited, I have difficulty giving credence to certain claims.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Andrew said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have no knowledge on the 105 f/1.8, so I'll keep my mouth shut this time.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I enjoyed reading your comments in the other thread.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Pete said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And Nikon uses theoretical MTF charts that are calculated and not measured from any real lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the only other data posted here has been purely anecdotal.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Pete said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have them both why not shoot first and then post your images?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, so I jumped the gun.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Joe sqaid:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have the AF 105mm f/2, but I think the Ai-S 105mm f/1.8 was one of the best purchases I've made. It was also worth the little extra money and effort to fit it with a Dandelion chip; allowing trap focus and "plug 'n' play" compatibility with my DSLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the kind of content I would've hoped this thread would elicit! Very interesting!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Pete said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well Andrew, I'm not sure what Ralph is after.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not even sure myself.<br>

<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I like to first test to see what the equipment is capable of under optimal circumstances which means tripod, perfect focus, controlled exposure, slanted edge targets and using imatest for analysis. Then I worry about how to get as good results as possible during actual shooting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Certainly, that's a perfectly sound, perfectly apt approach. However, I also agree with Andrew's argument.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Look there's a lot of knowledgeable people here. Some of the opinions expressed here are based on empirical facts, some, based on expert observation, both of which can yield useful conclusions. I appreciate everyone's participation in these threads, and if they're boring and pointless, my apologies. But, personally, I enjoy reading others' comments, and I know that many of you have quite a bit of practical expertise to offer in various aspects of photography. Personally, I find everyone's comments edifying (even the ones which don't "agree" with mine).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Joe said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . I think the Ai-S 105mm f/1.8 was one of the best purchases I've made. It was also worth the little extra money and effort to fit it with a Dandelion chip; allowing trap focus and "plug 'n' play" compatibility with my DSLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joe, would this chip work with the Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais, 35mm f/1.4 Ais, etc., and a Nikon FX digital body (e.g., D3s) or pro Nikon film body (e.g., F6)? Search Ebay for "EURO AF Confirm Metering Emulator Chip for Nikon DSLR D5100 D90 on Lens AIS AI" [direct Ebay links aren't permitted here].</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Hi Ralph....well, I mentioned looking over 24-120 samples, and then the photozone tests. Though I haven't used the lens myself, anything with that level of distortion at key focal lengths would be unworkable. Even the 24-70 is marginal, in spite of its superb clarity and microcontrast, as well as usable speed. </p>

<p>You seem to be of two minds about the 24-120, suggesting that you'd use it for events only, something it is better suited for, but also suggesting that it would be a workable portrait lens. I am only suggesting something for your behalf, that for portraiture, you stick with the very best that you have available.</p>

<p>I apologize for being just slightly frustrated, but the frustration level is only slight -- a 1.675 on a scale of 1 to 10, according to my frustration transfer function charts, which admittedly are only theoretical and not measured.</p>