Nikkor P Sonnar 105mm f2.5 lenses - differences?

[chris_burgess3]

<p>Hello,<br>

Are there any noticeable differences in optical performance between the earlier Nikkor P 10.5cm f2.5 (9 aperture blades) and the later Nikkor P 105mm f2.5 (6 aperture blades) Sonnars? I'm not referring to the later Xenotars, just the Sonnar design lenses. If there are, could you please describe the differences?<br>

Thanks</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I think the later model is optimized for portraits? I'm in the minority on this lens (tiny minority, apparently), but these lenses are not good for portraits, not in my real world experience anyway. They are tack sharp tele lenses, but I really hated the way mine imaged for portraits, both the earlier and later lens models. I went to a cheap Canon 135 2.5 that was better, then the Canon FD and FL 85 1.8 lenses, which were even better, and the bokeh was a LOT better than the Nikon. But truly, the FD 135 2.5 is plenty good if you can deal w/ that focal length. Worth buying an FD camera just to shoot it. Sharp is not good for portraits. I'm back to shooting Leica R 90's on my Nikon now. No complaints :)</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Different coatings too, giving slightly different flair behaviour</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I once had a pre-Ai 105mm Nikkor P. IIRC it was the six bladed design with gold coloured lens coating. Pretty horrible lens IMHO with lowish contrast at wider apertures, and not much else going for it. I got rid of it after only a short time, and I'd much rather use my current Ai-S version. Back when I had the Nikkor P, nobody paid any attention to bokeh (or even knew the word). If a lens was sharp and contrasty, then that's all that was expected.</p>

[roland_vink]

<p>[double post]</p>

[roland_vink]

<p>The early F-mount Nikkor-P 10.5cm (105mm) lens uses a Sonnar optical design based closely on the rangefinder version, except the rear element reduced in thickness by 1mm to allow enough back-focus for SLR cameras - see <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/45/index.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/45/index.htm</a>. This lens is distinguished by the chrome barrel and rather squat dimensions.</p>

<p>There are no changes to the optical design that I am aware of. Very early lenses have 9 aperture blades, which later reduced to 6 around no.123xxx. The front lens has yellow coatings, similar to many early lenses. The rear element also has yellow coatings, changing to purple around no.126xxx, but I don't expect this makes a big difference in contrast or resistance to flare. The finely knurled aperture ring was replaced by a heavier ribbed aperture ring at no.194011, and there were other minor changes to the barrel but overall the appearance was fairly consistent during production.</p>

<p>In 1971 it was replaced by the version with a modified Gauss (Xenotar) design. See <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/5/index.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/5/index.htm</a>. This lens has a black barrel, and was found in late pre-AI, AI and AI-S versions. </p>

[alex_guzun]

<p>this is a P 105mm<br>

<img src="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1421/5100125389_e7df7c4e02_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /></p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I have been using what sounds like the same lens as Rodeo Joe since the late 60's: a pre AI sonnar with 6 blades. I had it AI'd some years ago. I used it with much success on film for portraits, and not so much on DX now, preferring a shorter focal length most of the time. I'll post a couple of film examples and a DX example. I usually used f 4 or so, being a bit soft wide open. I love the bokeh of this lens, which is quite evident in the first example with the green trees in the background. Sorry, the image is a little greenish on my monitor!</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Here's that lens using black and white film, window light.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Same lens on DX format (D70)</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>For comparison with the same subject as the film examples, here's my daughter with the 105 and DX format.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>For what its worth, I did purchase a used AiS (gauss) version, and got rid of it because I didn't think it was as sharp as my older sonnar. It seems that sample variation is probably to blame for some of our divergent opinions about these various versions!</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Mine was pre AI ('71 ?) and I had it AI'd (9 blades). It's as sharp as the examples above. But, I noticed v. little diffraction....and it stops down to F32. The only lenses that seem to excel (IMO) is the Zeiss 100/2 and Tammy 90/2.8. Although it took me a while to admit to it, it's still a v. sweet lens. Well, Steve McCurry think so.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>