Classic Nikon 105mm F2.5 AI worth buying?

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=853120">Joey Chavit</a>, May 10, 2013; 01:40 p.m.</p>

 

<p>The 105 2.5 Nikkor is a perfect lens for portraits and I'd venture to say you'll be borrowing the lens from your wife once you see the results. I use this lens with the 800E and LOVE the results. Sharpness to the corners is overrated in the context of portraits and I use the Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm F2 for everything else.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Joey has it correct. 105/2.5 for portraits and 100/2 Zeiss for everything else is exactly my experience.<br>

As I said, I also have the 90/3.5CV, but I don't use it for portraits so much as for landscapes (the CV is every bit as sharp as the 100/2 MP at f/3.5, but it doesn't go to f/2).<br>

<br />For the price you can't really go wrong with the 105/2.5 AI or AIS . . .</p>

 

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2403817">Rodeo Joe</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 10, 2013; 01:35 p.m.</p>

 

<p>For $120 you really can't go far wrong. The 105mm f/2.5 can still hold its own among fancy modern aspherical designs, but it's probably not the absolute best portrait lens out there. It's younger cousin the f/1.8 105mm Ai-S Nikkor is marginally better IMHO. It's also twice the weight and size, and maybe twice the cost.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>For what it's worth I agree - in the center the 105/1.8 is slightly better, but if corners matter the f/2.5 is much much better (though not perfect). The only major problem that I have with my 105/2.5 is sometimes the MFD is a bit too long when I want to do a partial head portrait, but then I just need to throw on a PK11A or something and it's good.<br>

<br />- John</p>

 

[johncrosley]

<p>I've read all the comments above, and I won't repeat them. At one time or another (maybe now?), I've owned and/or shot with the 85, the 105 and the 135 Nikon AI (mf) classics.</p>

<p>One reason each became a classic is hardly (or not) mentioned above. Besides being plenty sharp, the color contrast is simply outstanding. Perhaps that's what is meant by the 'Leica glow' and the 'magic' that's mentioned but never explained. No ED glass either that I'm aware of.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why those particular lenses, especially my beloved 85 mm, was so stunning at color contrast, even in the world's worst and dimmest light, but it was, and the results were just spectacular. I'd recommend any of those lenses just for that quality alone, sharpness aside. </p>

<p>Sharpness is not necessarily a good attribute in portrait lenses anyway, though it can be, whereas it can definitely help in the vast majority of landscape situations.</p>

<p>It takes some time to get used again to manual focusing. That is not the fault of the lens either -- manual focusing with these lenses was NOT HARD AT ALL on a film camera designed for manual focusing.</p>

<p>The main culprit that causes difficulty with manual focusing now is the lack of the good old focus screens that were built into the manual focus cameras -- I never particularly liked the split screen, but LOVED the Fresnel lens, especially the focus screens with the circular Fresnel center that allowed for the most precise focusing -- which far and away beat for me an 'electronic viewfinder' because you could 'see' the results.</p>

<p>With the 'focus screens' on autofocus cameras nowadays, they're designed as much to keep from getting in the way and NOT for focusing particularly -- in a way they're available for manual focusing (sort of) but they're very much a compromise and designed not to interfere with viewfinder vision and not clutter it up sightlines with split screens/Fresnel rings, etc., which are invaluable to manual focusing (and so easily disregarded once you're used to them).</p>

<p>There was a time two years ago when those who were building the 'Red' type video cameras that have great depth of field control were buying up all the old Nikon manual focus lenses for optics, and they suddenly became very hard to get within a few months' time.</p>

<p>However, Nikon made these wonderful lenses by the boxcar load, even if they never were cheap new, and I'm not now familiar with the market. Nevertheless, I'd now pay $120 for a 105 mm version in decent condition with good glass almost in a second and go away whistling at my good luck.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>I have an AIs one. It has a certain look. Its not at all about sharpness. But if you are used to the sharpness and high contrast of contemporary lenses, you may be surprised. This lens has the dreaminess look sought for head and shoulders portraits. I also used mine on a D700. You either sigh with pleasure at what it can do or you won't like it.<br>

It has a subtlety different look to its images that the 85's and certainly the 50's. The pricing for good ones has steadily climbed from less than $100 a few years ago to around $250 for a pristine example today as serious shooters rediscover quality Nikkor primes to put on their D600/800's.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>BTW, I bought my beloved non-AI Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 precisely to use with both my film Nikons and with my Canon digital bodies, speaking of "for whom the bell tolls". </p>

 

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, I don`t see the point of using a Nikkor lens on a Canon camera... no AF, no metering, no split image... Doesn`t Canon have good cheap lenses like Nikon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>EF bodies meter perfectly well with Nikkors (or with any other manual focuses lens with aperture rings).</p>

<p>As for Canon having good cheap MF lenses, they do - FD lenses. The problem is that Canon orphaned the FD mount when they introduced the EOS system with its EF mount. FD lenses can be adpated for use on EOS bodies, but at the cost of degraded optics or loss of infinity focus.</p>

 

[Sanford]

<p>This thread has probably caused the price of this lens to go up 30%!</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Sanford, could you start a thread rubbishing the Nikon 400mm 2.8mm? :-)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I had a need to procrastinate, so I did a quick comparison of several portrait lenses including the 105/2.5 AIS on my D800 and <a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/21616771@N04/sets/72157633455704059/detail/">put it up here</a>.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For that matter, the EF (EOS-mount) lens offerings from Canon have a number of real bargains -- very close to the prices of the "cheap" lenses offered by Nikon for their faithful.</p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>Since a lot of those lenses have CAs and fringing that are easily corrected, <a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/21616771@N04/sets/72157633471906742/detail/">here is the same set</a> run through DXO.</p>

[theodoros_fotometria]

<p>I don't believe that there is such thing as 105mm f2.5 AF that James claims... Never the less, the 105 F2.5 AI-s is a superb lens as are all the 85mm f2 and the 135mm f2.8... Nikon is quite famous for their 80s short teles... as far as Rui's original enquire, which was on how the lens compares with 85mm f1.8 AF-D, the 85mm f1.8D is also a superb lens, maybe a tad better than the 105 in question (not that one would care on the difference) and choice between them should be on Ruy's preference for focal length, AF or not, speed or build quality... and price of course! In case that the 85mm focal length is preferable and other points don't matter, I would suggest the Nikkor 85mm f2 AI-S for the same amount or if even longer will do, the 135mm f2.8 AI-S is also an admirable performer... Another option can be the 105mm f2.8mm micro, which is the best of the better, bares micro ability and has nothing to fear from any today's Zeiss...</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>A great lens. Get it.</p>

[rui_wang3]

<p>Thank you for your comment! I finally bought a 'mint' condition Nikon 105/2.5 AI-S from Ebay for $265. I think the focal length better compliments the Nikon 50mm 1.4D. I am very excited!</p>

[royall_berndt]

Congratulations on your purchase. I have the AI version of that lens, and am constantly amazed at what it delivers. Nikon optimized that lens for the five- to seven-foot range so it would perform best in portraiture. It yields the best head shots you can get in 35mm.

 

That's a decent price for a mint copy of the lens. I paid that much for mine in 1982.

[rui_wang3]

<p>I can't wait to try the lens. There are plenty of 105/2.5 lenses sold for slightly more than $100 at Ebay but the possibility of fungi growth is scary so I ended up spending twice as much on a mint copy from Japan.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>As I implied before, this is one purchase you will never regret if it is in good condition.<br>

Report back on your experience.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Definitely. Mine's still got plenty of life in it. It was part of a deal where the guy was selling a camera with a few lenses, and I sold the rest to come away with the 105 for free. It's got somebody else's SSN engraved on it but the glass is perfect.</p>

[Albins images]

Gentleman, you almost made me spend a hundred euro's on a 105/2.5 AI !!

Now back in the train after handling it in a nearby town.. and declining because of a metal spot on the inside lenses..

Narrow escape!

[rui_wang3]

<p>I received the lens today! Very solid lens. I tested with my Canon 5D II. At 2.5/2.8 it is probably not as sharp as my Zeiss 135/2.8 or Tamron 90/2.8, or Canon 70-200mm F2.8 II, but it is sharp enough. Color and contrast are both very good.<br>

It is very compact--much smaller than Zeiss 135/2.8. I am very happy with my purchase!</p>