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

Nikkor 105/2.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:29 pm    Post subject: Nikkor 105/2.5 Reply with quote

I sometimes forget this lens (I have the 1.8 version as well Embarassed ). So I took it out to our local farmers' market and our town park this past couple of days - very sunny.
1. In the farmers market, a carnivorous plant for sale:


2, In the park a tame herd of wild deer



patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful images.
Today I got my (non-chipped) Nikkor-EOS adapter to test my Nikkor-P 2,5/105 (Planar version).
Tomorrow I will go outside to take some pictures.
So I am glad for the appetizer images you show me Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful captures!
The plant seems well fed.
I like this lens a lot but I also tend to forget it. Its more often the Nikkor 1.8/85 which comes to use.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great shots Patrick - congrats!
The carnivore came out excellent!!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrickh, these are amazing!!

I love them ...

tf


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carnivorous plant is great! Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The bokeh of this lens is something that always impresses me.
Great picture with the carnivore, Patrick.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful captures! Yes, this is a very nice lens , one of the best one from Nikon.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you all. I know I appreciate when someone reminds us how good one of the older lenses can be.


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi patrickh, this lens is good but I'd like to see your test compare with Nikon AIS 105/1.8. I don't have one but interested it. Could you share any comment about these 2 lenses.

Thank you.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have one too and its an extremely good portrait lens, if a little on the long side (Its FOV is equivalent to a 180mm lens on my 1.7x crop DSLR).
Its extremely sharp, if anything a bit too sharp for flattering portraits of females, as it shows every hair, spot and pore especially at f5.6.
Heres an example of how unflattering that sharpness can be:



And a 100% crop:



And its even worse at in Monochrome:



And a 100% crop



The Helios 40 is softer and makes for a much more flattering portrait but its a heavier and cruder lens than the svelte Nikon with it silky smooth focus dial. I dont use mine that often but its definitely a keeper. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DSG wrote:
it shows every hair, spot and pore especially at f5.6

the secret to get natural skin is to stop using flash


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
DSG wrote:
it shows every hair, spot and pore especially at f5.6

the secret to get natural skin is to stop using flash


But then you risk severe underexpsoure and consequently dreadfull image noise...The pic above was taken in my dimly lit bedsit room and therefore needed flash. I cant remember now but I think I used the cameras built in flash with no diffuser, hence the results.
Using softer light via a flash and brolly setup would obviously give much more flattering results.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DSG

You are quite correct about the sharpness and one has to be careful when doing portraits with it - 1.7x is compensated by going back 1.7x if you can Smile Smile .

Khanx
I shall look for a sample or two of the 105/1.8. Frankly I think it may be fractionally better, but its big advantage is two extra stops. It is also physically quite a bit larger (mainly in diameter) and also heavier.


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
DSG

You are quite correct about the sharpness and one has to be careful when doing portraits with it - 1.7x is compensated by going back 1.7x if you can Smile Smile .

Khanx
I shall look for a sample or two of the 105/1.8. Frankly I think it may be fractionally better, but its big advantage is two extra stops. It is also physically quite a bit larger (mainly in diameter) and also heavier.


patrickh


I'm told the f2.5 version is the better lens...BTW, is'nt f1.8 only about half a stop faster than f2.5?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DSG wrote:
BTW, is'nt f1.8 only about half a stop faster than f2.5?


No, it's approximately one stop difference.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me that one would always prefer a sharper lens over a softer one, unless one knew that the lens would be used for only one thing. In that case, it might be worth considering a softer optic if one planned to dedicate it to dreamy looking portraits.

I would rather have a tack-sharp optic so I can use it for anything I want. If I need softness, I'll dig out a filter, wipe a thin coat of vaseline on it, and mount it to the lens. Presto! Instant soft focus.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DSG wrote:
patrickh wrote:
DSG

You are quite correct about the sharpness and one has to be careful when doing portraits with it - 1.7x is compensated by going back 1.7x if you can Smile Smile .

Khanx
I shall look for a sample or two of the 105/1.8. Frankly I think it may be fractionally better, but its big advantage is two extra stops. It is also physically quite a bit larger (mainly in diameter) and also heavier.


patrickh


I'm told the f2.5 version is the better lens...BTW, is'nt f1.8 only about half a stop faster than f2.5?


It's very nearly one stop - 0.95.

Edit : Orio got there before me - glad we agree.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I made a tentative of scale of f/stop values subdivided by thirds.
There may be errors, so if someone wants to check and fix, that will be welcome:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,185277.html#185277