Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Ai on D700
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This thread has ceased to be informative and has descended into semantics. Sad


PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This thread has ceased to be informative and has descended into semantics. Sad

Unfortunately, this is true. The good news is that some pretty interesting resources have been shared by different posters, so people with the patience to wade through the whole thread might feel it was worth the effort Smile


PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, that is good, shame about the needing to wade though.

I'd love to see some more sample pics when you shoot some more, as i said before, I'm thinking of buying a Nikkor 2.5/105 and am uncertain which version I would prefer.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This thread has ceased to be informative and has descended into semantics. Sad


Ian, we can all use words in any way that we wish. But even if all of us on this forum agree on how to use words like Planar, Gauss and Double Gauss isn't it important that we try to understand how these words are used by the "big players", the lens designers and manufacturers, so that, when we read their literature, articles, papers, patents, etc., we have some idea of how they are being used.

@mfkita When I read your posts on Friday I was confused and I tried to explain why. On Saturday I had another look at your posts. I thought that I might have misinterpreted them and apologised if that what was the case. I then tried to understand them further. If I am continuing to misunderstand them I apologise gain. I will reply to your latest post later today. However it is now after midnight and I must to bed.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'd love to see some more sample pics when you shoot some more, as i said before, I'm thinking of buying a Nikkor 2.5/105 and am uncertain which version I would prefer.

Here are a couple test shots I took when I got the lens, back in March I think. Both shot wide open, with tripod. Second one had no processing done (just the NEF>jpeg conversion).





PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks very much for those, the lens looks really good, very sharp indeed. The bokeh on the first shot is a bit different to the classical Sonnar rendering but still very pleasant to my eyes.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Thanks very much for those, the lens looks really good, very sharp indeed. The bokeh on the first shot is a bit different to the classical Sonnar rendering but still very pleasant to my eyes.

It is really sharp at basically all apertures, I've been very happy with it. It does vignette a bit when shot wide open, as you can see in the last photo I posted, but I guess that's something to be expected.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
none the least I will add this lens to my collection once when I can find one at a good price.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
invisible wrote:
It is really sharp at basically all apertures, I've been very happy with it. It does vignette a bit when shot wide open, as you can see in the last photo I posted, but I guess that's something to be expected.


That's good to know, not many lenses are sharp at all apertures. I don't mind some vignette when it is of the gradual falloff type like here, it actually looks rather pleasant to my eyes.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
invisible wrote:
It is really sharp at basically all apertures, I've been very happy with it. It does vignette a bit when shot wide open, as you can see in the last photo I posted, but I guess that's something to be expected.


That's good to know, not many lenses are sharp at all apertures. I don't mind some vignette when it is of the gradual falloff type like here, it actually looks rather pleasant to my eyes.

Here's a similar shot taken at f/8. Sorry, this one is fully processed, can't find the NEF file at the moment for you to compare with the unprocessed file I posted above.



Last edited by invisible on Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's also nice, but I think I prefer the wide open one as it has a certain sense of cold bleakness.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've done the search needed to show the different 105/2.5 lenses

the 105/2.5P silver nose Sonnar
http://www.barthworks.com/nikon/nikon10525.htm

This page shows the "Pre-AI" 105 lenses in the black barrel metal and scalloped focusing barrel and the "K" rubber-covered barrel
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/105mm.htm

This page purportedly shows the AI version that is identical in cosmetics to the pre-AI "K" version...but
Other than the lens next to the box in the small photo in the middle of the page that has the AI aperture ring (and "hollow rabbit ears"), the others photos show the same pre-AI aperture ring...
This appears to be an error in identification.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/105mm.htm

This page shows the black-scalloped barrel 105 with an AI aperture ring but without the indexing post in the mount.
http://www.sgshoot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9062

The "K" with AI aperture ring; though it has no indexing post it is identified as an AI lens
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=461774

Side by side of "K" and scalloped barrel lens versions
http://www.djcphoto.com/index.php/nikkor-105mm-f2-5/

And the "K" AI with both AI aperture ring and AI indexing post
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/84403616-L.jpg
From this page....
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=137&topic_id=15336&mesg_id=15336&page=5

I hope this is clear enough....


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think you should start your own thread to discuss the different versions rather than continue in this one.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mfkita wrote:
sichko wrote:
mfkita wrote:
.Again, "K" refers to COSMETICS NOT OPTICS...

Simply because the "K" and the "Ai" share the same cosmetics doesn't mean that you can call a "K-lens" an "Ai lens". And you can't do it even when you've replaced the aperture ring of the "K" with a new factory (Nikon) ring.


I NEVER SAID THAT "K" AND "AI" ARE THE SAME....


I'm sorry if there is a language problem here - but I don't think that I accused you of that. I said Simply because the "K" and the "Ai" share the same cosmetics doesn't mean that you can call a "K-lens" an "Ai lens. However you did say, in an earlier post, ..

Quote:
that a "K" lens is NOT necessarily an AI lens....it may be


....and it’s that phrase with which I was disagreeing


Quote:
AND AGAIN, I SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT YOU CAN HAVE.... A "K" LENS WITH AN AI APERTURE RING AND WITH AN INDEXING POST.


You showed me a picture of an Ai lens and told me that me that it was a K lens. Why ? Because of the cosmetics ….



Quote:
I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT "K" IS STRICTLY COSMETICS,..


And this is where one of the problems comes from. There is a large community which understands particular things when you say “K” lens. A description is given here....

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

It includes more than cosmetics. For example, it tells us that there is no indexing post. Why are you unwilling to join the community ? Why do have to use terms in ways which are very different from the ways used by many others ? I have asked twice before if there is large alternative community which follows your way of thinking. If there isn’t why should anyone desert the crowd and join you ?

In the end I suppose it's all about words. But sometimes they matter. If you and I use the same words to mean different things we are going to find it difficult to talk to each other.

@mfkita I've had a look at your latest post and will comment shortly.

@ADMIN I have no particular wish to destroy the OP's thread. I won't object if you move my contribution elswhere - or delete it entirely!

Last edited by sichko on Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
In the end I suppose it's all about words.


There's your problem. This is a photography forum, so it's all about pictures. Less words and more pictures would be desirable.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mfkita wrote:
I've done the search needed to show the different 105/2.5 lenses

the 105/2.5P silver nose Sonnar
http://www.barthworks.com/nikon/nikon10525.htm


I don't think that this one is contentious.

Quote:
This page shows the "Pre-AI" 105 lenses in the black barrel metal and scalloped focusing barrel and the "K" rubber-covered barrel
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/105mm.htm

This page purportedly shows the AI version that is identical in cosmetics to the pre-AI "K" version...but
Other than the lens next to the box in the small photo in the middle of the page that has the AI aperture ring (and "hollow rabbit ears"), the others photos show the same pre-AI aperture ring...
This appears to be an error in identification.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/105mm.htm


I've been trying all day to get to the 105 mm page on the mir site and I can't get in.

Quote:
This page shows the black-scalloped barrel 105 with an AI aperture ring but without the indexing post in the mount.
http://www.sgshoot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9062


The problem is that the poster calls it: Nikon Nikkor-P 105mm f2.5 AIS manual focus lens !!!


Quote:
The "K" with AI aperture ring; though it has no indexing post it is identified as an AI lens
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=461774


It has been mis-identified. It's an Ai-converted K. Note the minimum aperture f/32.

Quote:
Side by side of "K" and scalloped barrel lens versions
http://www.djcphoto.com/index.php/nikkor-105mm-f2-5/


The caption says that the one on the left is "Ai" not "K". Correct. Note the minimum aperture f/22.

Quote:
And the "K" AI with both AI aperture ring and AI indexing post
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/84403616-L.jpg
From this page....
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=137&topic_id=15336&mesg_id=15336&page=5


You call it "K" Ai. I don't know anyone else who uses that terminology. The seller calls it Ai. I agree.

Quote:
I hope this is clear enough....


Thanks for your efforts but No. I guess that we continue to use terms differently


PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not sure if someone has posted this link but, I think it's a comprehensive and easily understood version history:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#105


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, identifying Nikon lens versions sure can be tricky. Pentax has about 8 lens series but they are all pretty easily identified
right on the front ring of the lens. K,M,A,F,FA DA, DFA etc


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There's only two significant versions of this lens really, all the arguing is about minor differences that aren't of any real importance.

First version is a Sonnar type, second is a Xenotar type, if you go back a couple of pages you can see the info from Nikon about it.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax can be a little complex at times also.
The famous case of the 7 and 8 element 50/1.4 Super Takumars and how to tell them apart is instructive. More than one unofficial variant has been found. No doubt similar things are also true of other types.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lenny wrote:
I'm not sure if someone has posted this link but, I think it's a comprehensive and easily understood version history:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#105


The site has been mentioned several times including a link to the 105 page. But thanks for mentioning it again. It's an incredible resource.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There's only two significant versions of this lens really, all the arguing is about minor differences that aren't of any real importance.

First version is a Sonnar type, second is a Xenotar type, if you go back a couple of pages you can see the info from Nikon about it.


But if you make a choice between Sonnar & Xenotar, and if you choose Xenotar, some of the differences are important - to some people. For example ...

Ai & Ais lenses will mount on high end Nikon cameras. Pre-Ai lenses won't mount without modification. If you can't find a factory Ai aperture ring you need to physically modify the existing one. But this might reduce the value - unimportant for a user maybe but important for a collector.

There are differences between the Ai and Ais lenses which make some people prefer one and others the other.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:

But if you make a choice between Sonnar & Xenotar, and if you choose Xenotar, some of the differences are important - to some people. For example ...

Ai & Ais lenses will mount on high end Nikon cameras. Pre-Ai lenses won't mount without modification. If you can't find a factory Ai aperture ring you need to physically modify the existing one. But this might reduce the value - unimportant for a user maybe but important for a collector.

There are differences between the Ai and Ais lenses which make some people prefer one and others the other.


Good, back to optics rather than cosmetics, sort of. You hint at the difference but then talk about cosmetics. Given that we know the difference in lens forumula between the earlier and later lenses, what are the known differences in performance? I also believe (from my qualitative tests) that there are significant differences between versions within each formula. Does anyone have any info on what physical differences exist? Different coatings should be apparent, even documented since as coatings were improved the lenses were marketed as improved and Nikon was not shy to talk about their coatings. But changes in coating come with at least small changes in lens formulas, materials, etc. Does anyone on this forum have knowledge in this area?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
sichko wrote:

But if you make a choice between Sonnar & Xenotar, and if you choose Xenotar, some of the differences are important - to some people. For example ...

Ai & Ais lenses will mount on high end Nikon cameras. Pre-Ai lenses won't mount without modification. If you can't find a factory Ai aperture ring you need to physically modify the existing one. But this might reduce the value - unimportant for a user maybe but important for a collector.

There are differences between the Ai and Ais lenses which make some people prefer one and others the other.


Good, back to optics rather than cosmetics, sort of. You hint at the difference but then talk about cosmetics.


I think that whether you can mount a lens, or not, is a question of functionality rather than cosmetics. Similarly, the Ais lens has linear control of aperture via the camera's stop down lever when the camera is used in shutter mode. But no - I don't know of any optical differences between the different Xenotar versions. Like you, I suspect that there are some - if only minor. If you look at the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 series - Ai, Ais, Series E, AF, AF-D - then some people claim that they all use the same optical formula - apart from coatings. However Marco Cavina has discovered two different formulae (radii, glass types, etc) for lenses with the same Ais designation. It's an interesting article - http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Nikkor_lenses_by_Sei_Matsui/00_pag.htm - which has appeared before on this forum, possibly in translation, but I can't remember where..

Perhaps someone feels strong enough to search the Nikon Patent literature for different 105 mm lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Instead of all these words, we need pictures. Information on details is all fine and well, but we need to see image samples from the different versions to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions.

I have to wonder, do these people who are full of words but never post a single picture actually shoot? Do they actually know what they're talking about? Without any image evidence, I think they are best ignored to be honest, all they do is ruin threads with endless words that are bereft of meaning due to no evidence they even know how to use a camera. It is most annoying, I call them armchair photographers and like back seat drivers, they are more of a hindrance than a help.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4