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 Nikkor 105mm F2.5 AI
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
And as you point out, it seems that it may be incorrect to call the first type Sonnar. I am not sure about this, however. Pending confirmation I have just referred to it as the "earlier design".


It is a clone of the original Carl Zeiss Sonnar, so its design is, naturally, a Sonnar design. Note that the early 105/2.5 is a derivative of Nikon's rangefinder series 85/2, which, in its turn, is a direct copy of pre-war Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.

These are Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135/4, Sonnar 135/3.5, and Sonnar 180/2.8:



Nikon 135/2.5 (early):


Sonnar 85/2 and Jupiter-9:



EDIT: one more diagram of pre-war Sonnar 85/2:



Nikon's 85/2 and Nikon's 105/2.5 'Sonnar' design. There's almost no difference in optical layout of the 85 and 105mm lenses:


Finally, Nikon's 105/2.5 'Xenotar' design:
[/img]

Last edited by aoleg on Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:45 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
It is a clone of the original Carl Zeiss Sonnar, so its design is, naturally, a Sonnar design. Note that the early 105/2.5 is a derivative of Nikon's rangefinder series 85/2, which, in its turn, is a direct copy of pre-war Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.


I am puzzled by this statement. I'm no expert on optics, but to me, "clone" means 'identical.' Is the Sonnar 85/2 (in blue) the pre-war Sonnar 85/2? If so, then there is substantial difference between this design, both in number of elements and shape, than the Nikkor 85/105. In fact, the Nikkor design is noticeably different from all the Sonnar designs you show, whether in number of elements, or element shapes.

I can see why Nikon referred to their 105/2.5 as a Sonnar type, since there is some general resemblance to the above formulas. But not specific resemblance, which I guess makes it their own flavor of a Sonnar design.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree about the wording.
"Clone" should be used only when the lens is identical and made as a perfect copy on purpose.
For instance, the Jupiter-9 is a clone of the Contax Sonnar 2/85
And the Industar 3.5/50 is a clone of the Tessar 3.5/50, and the Helios-44 is a clone of the Biotar 2/58.

When the copy is not a "perfect copy", I think we should use the simple word "copy", or "derivative".


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
larsr wrote:
I started investigating myself because it really bugs me when people talk about things as if they were facts, without any kind of proofing.


It's all very well complaining about people who make mistakes with proofing. It's sometimes difficult to make the connection between referenced statements and the references themselves. For example...

larsr wrote:

* Sonnar (combination of the Ernostar and Tessar) has two derivatives, both post-war, 7/3 and 6/4
Source: Nikon, see "1. The Sonnar-type lens and the Gauss-type lens"
Source: Wikipedia


The Nikon source takes us here....

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n40_e.htm

I've looked very hard but I can't find the reference to a 6/4 Sonnar although there is reference to 6/3 and 7/3 Sonnars and a 6/4 Gauss. The Wiki source refers to a 6/3 Sonnar. Am I missing something ? Given my previous record I might be - but I can't see the 6/4 Sonnar. The
Ernostar-Tessar reference is given here...

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/nwords-e.htm#sonnarty

but I can't find it your source.

larsr wrote:
Nikon say that the 10.5cm/2.5 P was a 5/3 Sonnar design, even though they on the Sonnar-type page say that the Sonnar only had two variations, namely the 7/3 and 6/4.


I'm not sure that they say that there were only two types. Here's the quote..

The Sonnar-type lens, which was discussed in Tale 34, can be configured as a three-group, six-element lens, as shown in Figure 1, or as a three-group, seven-element lens, with the rear group comprised of three elements.

Nikon appear to be referring to the Sonnar type lens which was discussed in Tale 34 which is is 6/3 Sonnar discussed here ...

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n34_e.htm

This source provides a further reference....

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n33_e.htm

This is a 5 element Sonnar. Quote...

This lens was designed with a Sonnar-Type lens configuration that Nippon Kogaku K.K. used for a long time.

I'm not always sure how to count the elements so I'm not sure whether or not it's 5/4 or 5/3. Anyway, if you replace the air gap between the 2nd and 3rd elements with an extra element and cement the three together you get the 6/3 referred to earlier.

Replacement of the rear elements (a cemented doublet - I'm not sure that this is technically correct but there are two of them - glued together) in the 6/3 Sonnar with a single elemnet would give a 5/3 with a configuration matching that of the 2.5/105 Sonnar P

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n05_e.htm

Maybe, and this is only a guess, this is why Nikon refer to the early 2.5/105 as a Sonnar.

larsr wrote:
I am very puzzled here, as I was under the impression that there would only have been two variations of the Sonnar.


Are you refering to Nikon lenses only ? If not there are lots of variations...

CZJ 3.5/135 and 4/135 both 4/3
CZJ 2.8/200 and 4/300 both 6/4

http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses.html

Ziess ZA Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 11/9

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/381-zeiss_za_135_18

Sonnar is a Registered trademark of Zeiss and they can use it how they like.

Of course I've no idea if any of this is true but the references might be useful.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
John,

my purpose was not to attack you or anyone else participating in this thread - what I said was not meant to be directed at discussion in this thread, rather, at any and all people I've conversed with who stood up to their words with no proof whatsoever, only to be later stood, well, corrected. I am sure you know the type.
My motive is to spark discussion and investigation, not war and flaming - and I do apologize if this was the way you or anyone else might have understood it.

I also originally wrote:
larsr wrote:
I am pretty sure I'm also missing something.


All that said, I'm also very thankful for the work (and the depth of it) you brought in. I'll try and see if I could pull together a referral of some sort (if Chris doesn't manage first :)


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
aoleg wrote:
It is a clone of the original Carl Zeiss Sonnar, so its design is, naturally, a Sonnar design. Note that the early 105/2.5 is a derivative of Nikon's rangefinder series 85/2, which, in its turn, is a direct copy of pre-war Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.


I am puzzled by this statement. I'm no expert on optics, but to me, "clone" means 'identical.' Is the Sonnar 85/2 (in blue) the pre-war Sonnar 85/2? If so, then there is substantial difference between this design, both in number of elements and shape, than the Nikkor 85/105. In fact, the Nikkor design is noticeably different from all the Sonnar designs you show, whether in number of elements, or element shapes.


While I agree on the wording ('clone' is probably a strong statement for comparing the two 85/2 lenses), I clearly see the resemblance between these optical formulas. If anything, Nikkor 85/2 and early 105/2.5 have the optical scheme derived from Sonnar 180/2.8, probably the very first Sonnar ever built en masse. Therefore I have no problem classifying Nikon's 85/2 and early 105/2.5 as Sonnars.

BTW, here's another Sonnar from Nikon, this time 135/3.5. Try finding the difference between this and Jena:



PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
larsr wrote:
John,

my purpose was not to attack you or anyone else participating in this thread - what I said was not meant to be directed at discussion in this thread, rather, at any and all people I've conversed with who stood up to their words with no proof whatsoever, only to be later stood, well, corrected. I am sure you know the type.
My motive is to spark discussion and investigation, not war and flaming - and I do apologize if this was the way you or anyone else might have understood it.

I also originally wrote:
larsr wrote:
I am pretty sure I'm also missing something.



Lars - thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying and please accept my apologies for directing my rant at you. It might have been better directed at Chris rather than you. However you appeared to support him and one of your posts gave me the opportunity of illustrating how difficult it is to get everything absolutely right.

Look at what Chris said....

ChrisLilley wrote:
Look, people hit these threads through Google. The newer threads tend to come up higher. Some questions (like this one) come up repeatedly, people put in effort to get the accurate information, then it starts again in a new thread with people posting wild guesswork, hearsay, or faulty summarizing and off we go again.


He is, of course, right. But it's the very nature of forums (fora ?) like this one that errors are made. Google collects these errors which are picked up by members of other forums and the errors are propagated, eventually being repeated here.

What's the alternative ? Already we have people prefacing anything they say with AFAIK, IMO, IMHO or some such, for fear of being attacked lest they get it wrong. What now ? Are we going to demand that every statement of fact is clearly indicated as such ? And every statement of fact is provided with a reference ? And what sort of reference ? Presumably only quality references are to be allowed. So no more references to Wikipedia ? I can't speak for the field of photography but in my own field it's half full of sh1t. There's some good stuff as well but you have to be an expert to know which is which - which rather defeats the object of looking there in the first place !

I think that Sven got it right...

Sven wrote:
I can understand your frustration. The truth has been written once, and then new postings tend to distort it.
I can't see how this could be entierly avoided though.
A forum like this will inevitably be populated by people with different areas of skills and knowledge levels. Personally I think that's what makes it interesting.
I realise that it might be annoying for the experts in the forum to continously have to correct the less enlightened ones, but isn't that the whole point, that we learn from each other.
It's a balance really. Tell peolple to avoid posting unless they are 100% certain of all facts and get correct but probably not so many threads. Or, leave it as it is and get many, but sometimes incorrect postings.
I agree that this thread got unusually messy regarding the optical design, bit maybe that's the price to pay for having an open and lively forum.


As for Google ? Well it's a great resource but it a horrible mixture of the good and the bad, the true and the untrue, the relevant and the irrelevant... If you are going to use it, the trick is learning how to. So forums like this one will provide an entry into the field of study/research but in the end you might prefer to rely on primary sources such as Nikon, or Zeiss, or whatever, rather than the content of the forums themselves.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Guys, this is peer review in action. Brings me back to my college days. I love it. Cool


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Guys, this is peer review in action.


Yes indeed. So in addition to writing our own submissions we spend our time refereeing other peoples. And if we really want to be respectable we need external referees as well. Maybe the guys at nikongear could help us out with the Nikon stuff, and I'm sure that we could find a Zeiss forum that would be willing to help......


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Aoleg,

Based on the various Sonnar designs you posted, it seems to me that nearly all 3rd party SLR 105mm-180mm I have opened are "Sonnars"

Almost all of them have 4 elements in three groups with a thin front element, very thick cemented #2+3, of strong convex front-concave rear parts, and a rear element.

Many Tamrons, Tokinas, Komine, Sankors, Fujitas, Kyoei, and unknown make lenses all have the same basic design.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I dont think I have ever read a thread and been more confused.

So simply, I have a Nikkor PC 105 2.5 - 537xxx with a pentax K mount conversion. Which variation is this one?

I only got to use it for some test shots before I had a camera problem... but I liked it. buttery oof area in some situations and fairly sharp wide open. A little flarish... but the hood helped that.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
***I dont think I have ever read a thread and been more confused.***

LOL same here.....for me ignorance is bliss, and what counts is how a lens perfoms in practice, afterall it is the end result that counts in print etc


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Based on the various Sonnar designs you posted, it seems to me that nearly all 3rd party SLR 105mm-180mm I have opened are "Sonnars"

Almost all of them have 4 elements in three groups with a thin front element, very thick cemented #2+3, of strong convex front-concave rear parts, and a rear element.


Quite many are. However, at least some of them should be classified as Ernostars rather than Sonnars: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar.html and http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html

http://www.ksmt.com/eos10d/eos_nikki_body36.htm (search for Ernostar to see optical diagrams)



PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gus Helios wrote:
So simply, I have a Nikkor PC 105 2.5 - 537xxx with a pentax K mount conversion. Which variation is this one?


Later Xenotar-type. Multi-coated (that's what 'C' stands for in 'P.C.')
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2