| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:50 pm Post subject: E |
 |
|
bernhardas wrote:
edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 17, 2016 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 6602
Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Very fine article.
It is indeed very curious why Nikon issued this lens. A compact tele (well, this one is not really a tele, being a triplet, its just a long lens) is presumably of value, for the sake of light weight and compactness, but if its going to go on a big, heavy lump of a Nikon F body one has to wonder what's being gained.
_________________
I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 17, 2016 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Never heard of this lens before and never seen one for sale. It looks like an rf lens quite out of place in the SLR era.
The 2.5/105 seems to have been hugely popular judging by how many there seem to be around today, so for some reason the 4/105 can't have been a sales success, probably the price difference wasn't all that large so people went for the better 2.5/105.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 1432
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 17, 2016 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
This is indeed an uncommon lens in the UK and it's many, many years since I've even seen one advertised. I've handled the lens but never used it. I do have a front lens cap for one, but how I came by it I'm not sure
To understand its existence I suppose we have to go back and 'stand on the ground' in the late 1950s. Several of the first longer focal lengths originally made for the Nikon F were indeed those already being made for the Nikon rangefinder models and it would have made sense for the firm to assess the trend of demand for reflex camera lenses by making existing ones in the new fitting. Back then, the idea of 'traveling light' was still popular and we should remind ourselves that the 'plain' Nikon F (without the Photomic head) was by no means 'a big heavy lump'*, so that providing a lightweight 105mm lens would have looked like sound sense to the Nikon marketing department.
Canon made something similar for their early SLR models that was similarly an adaptation of rangefinder lens, the 5-element 100/3.5. It too faded away from their catalogue quite quickly.
* about the same weight and length as a Leica M, for which scores of thousands of 90mm f4 Elmars were sold in the 50s and early 60s.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
