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: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:14 pm    Post subject: Nikon Nikkor 105mm F2.5 AI Reply with quote
Anyone know this lens and what it might be worth?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikon Nikkor 105mm F2.5 AI Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Anyone know this lens and what it might be worth?


A very high quality lens. I paid about 130 GBP for one a few months ago. Exterior is good to very good, glass is great. There's one on ebay at the moment - slightly better - at 145 GBP BIN. On the other hand another sold in auction recently for 98 GBP.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, I have a pre-AI version, which I believe is a different optical formula. I've read that the later optical formula perhaps handles flare and CA better wide open than the earlier one does? Nonetheless, mine is a wonderful lens for both portraiture and short tele photography. It's well worth adding to your kit.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cool. I'm trying to get one on Ebay. There's a pre-AI (PC-version) which seems to be converted to AI, according to the seller. I hope to 'win' this one and will put it on my D300 and see how it works out. For portraits on DX-format 105 might be too much. Also trying to score a 85/2.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the later AI version. Acc. to Björn Rörslätt the older one is a Sonnar design while the newer PC is a Gauss design.
Impressively sharp and nice colour rendition.
I can definitely recommend it.
Here they usually sell for around 100 GBP


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sven wrote:
I have the later AI version. Acc. to Björn Rörslätt the older one is a Sonnar design while the newer PC is a Gauss design.


A recent thread on this forum discussed the design of this lens. The PC is the older version.

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


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Yeah, I have a pre-AI version, which I believe is a different optical formula.


Is it a silver nose Nikkor-P? If so then yes, its a different optical formula. If its a black nose Nikkor-P, or a Nikkor-P.C then its the same optical formula (Xenotar) as the AI and AIS versions.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
Sven wrote:
I have the later AI version. Acc. to Björn Rörslätt the older one is a Sonnar design while the newer PC is a Gauss design.


A recent thread on this forum discussed the design of this lens. The PC is the older version.

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


Here we go again. No, the P.C is the newer version; and its a Xenotar design, not a Gauss design.

Is today "post inaccurate Nikon-related info day" or something? Or does the search not work?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Yeah, I have a pre-AI version, which I believe is a different optical formula.


Is it a silver nose Nikkor-P? If so then yes, its a different optical formula. If its a black nose Nikkor-P, or a Nikkor-P.C then its the same optical formula (Xenotar) as the AI and AIS versions.


Mine is a black-nose Nikkor-P. According to the NZ-based serial number website, it dates to about 1972. Glad to read about the optical formula. I've owned Rolleiflexes with 2.8 Xenotars, and they always gave a special sort of 3D look for portraiture. But I've owned earlier and later 105/2.5s than this one, and I find them all to be good.

DikkiDick, if you will be using it on a crop-body, it will give you some compression. If used on an EOS crop body, it will provide the equivalent of a 168mm -- somewhat less for a Nikon crop body. My advice is to just give it a try and see what you think of the results. I think that the compression provided by a telephoto longer than 105mm can often be quite flattering. Plus, when shooting wide open, you should be able to really blow out the background because of its f/2.5 aperture.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
sichko wrote:
Sven wrote:
I have the later AI version. Acc. to Björn Rörslätt the older one is a Sonnar design while the newer PC is a Gauss design.


A recent thread on this forum discussed the design of this lens. The PC is the older version.

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


Here we go again. No, the P.C is the newer version; and its a Xenotar design, not a Gauss design.

Is today "post inaccurate Nikon-related info day" or something? Or does the search not work?


Well, sorry for quoting an inaccurate source. According the the above Nikon link the Xenotar is a modified Gauss design so I can see how the mistake has been made.
I belive the question was more aimed at finding out if it's a good lens and what it usuallay sells for and in that sense most information here is still valid.
In my view it's a very good lens for general use if one likes short telephoto lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
sichko wrote:
Sven wrote:
I have the later AI version. Acc. to Björn Rörslätt the older one is a Sonnar design while the newer PC is a Gauss design.


A recent thread on this forum discussed the design of this lens. The PC is the older version.

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


Here we go again. No, the P.C is the newer version; and its a Xenotar design, not a Gauss design.

Is today "post inaccurate Nikon-related info day" or something? Or does the search not work?


No. I made a mistake. I misread the post and thought that Sven was suggesting that the PC was newer than the Ai. Please accept my apologies for any confusion caused.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

DikkiDick, if you will be using it on a crop-body, it will give you some compression. If used on an EOS crop body, it will provide the equivalent of a 168mm -- somewhat less for a Nikon crop body. My advice is to just give it a try and see what you think of the results. I think that the compression provided by a telephoto longer than 105mm can often be quite flattering. Plus, when shooting wide open, you should be able to really blow out the background because of its f/2.5 aperture.


Well Michael, I have a Nikon-body, so it will be approx. 157mm, if I at least win it. It seems rather used. Well, it takes another 3 days or so before bidding ends and hope no-one bids higher. And I'm also trying to get a 85mm/2 for a not too expensive price.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 85mm f/2 should be a very nice portrait lens for a Nikon crop body. It's 1.5x isn't it? So that's 128mm. Some of my very best portraits were taken with a Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 on a 35mm body, so I suspect you would be quite happy with it.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:

No. I made a mistake. I misread the post and thought that Sven was suggesting that the PC was newer than the Ai. Please accept my apologies for any confusion caused.

John - We all make mistakes. Thanks for helping, we all learn from this.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry to repeat, but could someone just please clarify, which version of the 105/2.5 is Gauss, and which Sonnar?

This thread made me seasick Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
larsr wrote:
Sorry to repeat, but could someone just please clarify, which version of the 105/2.5 is Gauss, and which Sonnar?

This thread made me seasick Very Happy


The earlier version is the Sonnar. The AI and AIS is Gauss. I do not know the exact cut off point date wise however (ie was the transition made at the same time as the AI mount - I am not sure) but if you check out the site below you may find exactly where the transition occurred. The reason for my uncertainty is that there were several sub variants with the early versions of the lens.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/105mm.htm

On a quick read the site says "The most important change of this lens may be occurred between 1971- 1973 (500001). The lens has a modified optical design where its old optical formula of 5 elements in 3 groups being reverted to an existing 5 elements in 4 groups construction. " This suggests that the change was made before the move to AI but I have not researched this properly.

Although the gauss design is regarded as technically better I prefer the Sonnar signature. It is kinda unique especially for portraits.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:55 am    Post subject: Nikkor P 105 2.5 Reply with quote
The first and second version (P) is a sonnar, then change the optical formula and is a double gauss, more focus but worse bokeh.
Upload photos soon made with a 105 P, the second version.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I prefer the first version, the colour tone is much warmmer and nicer, although the later model sounds interesting.
How much does it worth? Humm... it depends on how much you want to get from this lens Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterm1 wrote:
larsr wrote:
Sorry to repeat, but could someone just please clarify, which version of the 105/2.5 is Gauss, and which Sonnar?

This thread made me seasick Very Happy


The earlier version is the Sonnar.


Yes.

peterm1 wrote:
The AI and AIS is Gauss.


No. Its Xenotar.

peterm1 wrote:
I do not know the exact cut off point date wise however (ie was the transition made at the same time as the AI mount - I am not sure)


No, it wasn't the same time as the switch to AI mount.

(guesswork deleted).


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sven wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:

Here we go again. No, the P.C is the newer version; and its a Xenotar design, not a Gauss design.

Is today "post inaccurate Nikon-related info day" or something? Or does the search not work?


Well, sorry for quoting an inaccurate source.


The source is accurate. You quoted it inaccurately, or didn't read it closely enough.

Sven wrote:
According the the above Nikon link the Xenotar is a modified Gauss design so I can see how the mistake has been made.


Yes, lots of lens designs are derived from other designs. And according to the link you quoted, the design change happened when the lenses were still being listed as "auto" (auto-aperture, ie not stop down), which corresponds to the first Nikkor-P designation.

Yes, despite that link to Nikon desgn description, and despite earlier posting s that identified exactly when the change happen, we still have later postings muddying the waters with faulty remembering or guesswork, apparently its too hard to follow and read links or to actually read other postings in the thread? Rolling Eyes

Sven wrote:
I belive the question was more aimed at finding out if it's a good lens and what it usuallay sells for and in that sense most information here is still valid.


Around 50% of the responses confidently assigned it to the wrong optical design.

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.

Sven wrote:
In my view it's a very good lens for general use if one likes short telephoto lenses.


Of course it is. Its a pretty famous lens, well regarded.

The value to a photographer is much higher than its financial value, which is currently modest.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
Sven wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:

Here we go again. No, the P.C is the newer version; and its a Xenotar design, not a Gauss design.

Is today "post inaccurate Nikon-related info day" or something? Or does the search not work?


Well, sorry for quoting an inaccurate source.


The source is accurate. You quoted it inaccurately, or didn't read it closely enough.



This is my original statement: "Acc. to Björn Rörslätt the older one is a Sonnar design while the newer PC is a Gauss design."
Plese check this link and see if he anywhere mentions "Xenotar" in connection with the 2.5/105. I might be wrong but I can't see it.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html
I can see that the designation PC not nessecarily signifies the new design so that could perhaps have been a bit misleading in my statement, but not entirely incorrect since the C (multi-coating) was not present on the old design.




ChrisLilley wrote:
Sven wrote:
I belive the question was more aimed at finding out if it's a good lens and what it usuallay sells for and in that sense most information here is still valid.


Around 50% of the responses confidently assigned it to the wrong optical design.

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.


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.

Last edited by Sven on Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:06 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I'm wrong. The optical formula becomes Xenotar (Gauss type?) Models, PC, AI, AIS. etc.
There are six or more models, one of the last with 5 blades diaphragm.
I enclose two pages where more information see.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n05_e.htm

Greetins, sniper.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I did some research and cross-referencing on the net and this data on the 105/2.5 is based on my sourced findings.

There would seem to be five(5) distinct types of 105/2.5 lenses, and two(2) optical construction derivatives within those five types. Each type has at least one slightly varied subversion to confuse things.
The main types are the following:

1. 105/2.5 P-version (Optical design 5/3)
2. 105/2.5 multicoated P -version (Optical design 5/4)
3. 105/2.5 K-version (Optical design 5/4)
4. 105/2.5 AI version (Optical design 5/4)
and
5. 105/2.5 AIS version (Optical design 5/4)
Source: Roland Vink/Photosynthesis, see column "optic".

The Schneider Xenotar, Gauss and Sonnar-type designs are all individually different designs as follows:

* Schneider Xenotar is a 5/4 design, based on the Gaussian design
Source: Nikon, see "1. Lens structure and features"
Source: Wikipedia

* Gauss (or Gaussian, or Double Gauss as it is synonymously known) is a 6/4 design
Source: Nikon, see "G. Gaussian (Gauss-type) lens"

* 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

However, based on this alone, one would come to the conclusion that only the versions after the first P-version would be Xenotar, and they would all be Xenotar-type.
Yet 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. The 105/2.5 page also does not talk about Gauss designs at all.

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

So it would seem that actually none of these are the real Gaussian designs, only modified versions of the Gauss design.

I'm looking for further black-on-white, sourced proof to work this out further.
I am pretty sure I'm also missing something.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
larsr wrote:
I did some research and cross-referencing on the net and this data on the 105/2.5 is based on my sourced findings.


Excellent. I very much appreciate the depth of research and also the citation of sources.

larsr wrote:
There would seem to be five(5) distinct types of 105/2.5 lenses, and two(2) optical construction derivatives within those five types.


Since the earliest Nikkor-P 105/2.5 came in both optical constructions, it should count as two types and thus, the total number of types is six.
Source: Bjørn who says
Quote:
The first batch evidently were released without multi-coating and carried the 'P' designation (I own one of them), but these were quickly replaced by multicoated 'P·C'-labelled lenses.

Source: me (I also own a Nikkor-P which is of the second, Xenotar type).
Serial: 427030 Marking: Lens Made In Japan


Its possible to tell the two different Nikkor-P apart, because the older optical design has a silver-colored "nose" (the part of the barell closest to the front element) like this



while the later, Xenotar type has a black nose

Notice that this one says Nikkor-P not Nikkor-P.c and also that it says "auto".

Source: Roland Vink, specs
The thick blue line between the two Nikkor-P indicates a design change, in Roland's layout.

Another way to tell is by serial number, the last batch of old-design 105/2.5 have the serial numbers starting 234011 and covering at least the range 234380 - 286276
Source: Roland Vink, serials

while the remainder of the Nikkor-P, with the new design, have two sets of serials

a) starting 407301 and covering at least 407493 - 408125
b) starting 409001 and covering at least 409383 - 471485
type a)is labelled Nippon Kogaku Japan while type b) is labelled Nikon.
Source: Roland Vink, serials

To correct your original table, then, we have six types

1. 105/2.5 P-version, silvernose (Optical design 5/3)
2. 105/2.5 P-version, blacknose (Optical design 5/4)
3. 105/2.5 multicoated P.C -version (Optical design 5/4)
4. 105/2.5 K-version (Optical design 5/4)
5. 105/2.5 AI version (Optical design 5/4)
and
6. 105/2.5 AIS version (Optical design 5/4)
Source: Roland Vink/Photosynthesis, see column "optic".

larsr wrote:
The Schneider Xenotar, Gauss and Sonnar-type designs are all individually different designs as follows:

* Schneider Xenotar is a 5/4 design, based on the Gaussian design
Source: Nikon, see "1. Lens structure and features"
Source: Wikipedia


Yes. Nikon refer to it as a Xenotar-type design, and this seems to be correct. Bjørn refers to it as a Gauss design, which is incorrect, but as its a derivation of a double Gauss perhaps that is where he was misled.
I will contact Bjørn and ask if he could make a correction.

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

However, based on this alone, one would come to the conclusion that only the versions after the first P-version would be Xenotar, and they would all be Xenotar-type.


Agreed.


larsr wrote:
Yet 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. The 105/2.5 page also does not talk about Gauss designs at all.

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

So it would seem that actually none of these are the real Gaussian designs, only modified versions of the Gauss design.


Yes. There is no Gauss-design 105/2.5 from Nikon.

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".


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Chris!

This is excellent, proofed information which should rectify all misconceptions people have about this lens.

I started investigating myself because it really bugs me when people talk about things as if they were facts, without any kind of proofing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2