105 f/2.5 Nikkor P - p.c.

[MC JC86]

I've been looking through an assortment of 105mm F/2.5 Nikkor lenses. I had heard that earliest models are very well respected and are optically similar to the RF model (I am referring to F mount lenses herein)

I've noticed a older ones that still have chrome fronts, some of which have had AI'd mounts. I've also noticed non-AI models with black barrels and focusing wrings that still contain the P designation. I'm, admittedly, a noob with this type of thing so I'd love some help.

Which model contains optics similar to that of the Nikon RF model but is in F mount? Only the earliest? Can one tell by serial number? I'm trying to make a choice today and getting confused with some mixed information online, some of it (flickr discussions) being downright inaccurate. Any help is apprecaited.


Basically, I'd like to end up with a 105 f/2.5 Nikkor F mount
that shares the characteristics of it's Nikon RF brother.


Thank you so much for all your help, sorry if I'm ramblinb; half asleep.

[MC JC86]

Awesome. Thanks a lot!

[Rob-F]

Hmm. According to Braczko's Complete Nikon System all 105/2.5 through #500,000 had 5 elements in 3 groups. Beginning with version 4, at 500,001, the formula was changed to 5 elements in 4 groups. There is no mention of a formula change until version 4. Version 4 still had the scalloped focusing ring. The hard rubber ring started with version 5 at #673101. The AI versions didn't start until 890001.

[MC JC86]

I ordered one.. I'm sure it will be "nice" either way, although I'd prefer the 5/3. I'll know for sure Friday I guess.

[ray*j*gun]

I currently own and use a 105 F mount that is in the #400,000 range and appears identical in performance to my S mount 105.

[kievman]

I have heard the that the original 105's RF and the later F mount ones were pretty close in performance, very sharp and have a beautiful Bokeh. I have seen many shots from the F mount ones and I was very impressed with the sharpness and beautiful Bokeh. This is still a very desirable lens and still brings good prices on ebay - Kievman

[MC JC86]

I have heard the that the original 105's RF and the later F mount ones were pretty close in performance, very sharp and have a beautiful Bokeh. I have seen many shots from the F mount ones and I was very impressed with the sharpness and beautiful Bokeh. This is still a very desirable lens and still brings good prices on ebay - Kievman

Yeah, I know that the RF and early F ones are similar. I'm hoping the one I'm getting from KEH was one of the early ones, they weren't able to tell me the S/n# right away, but since it was $70 I figured I'll just take a chance. It's one with the chrome front, non-ai and marked in CM, which seems to have been done at several times during production, earlier and somewhat later, both within the S/N range jonmanjiro provided. I'm sure it will be "nice" either way.

[Stuart John]

I have the older sonnar version of the 105 2.5 in F mount I use it on an FM2n. I am very pleased with it.
Here is a shot from the 105 2.5. I guess it has a vintage look but the APX100 in rodinal certainly helps.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/3357/U3357I1300647244.SEQ.0.jpg

I find it goes very well with my Industar 26 on my FED3. Here is one fron the Industar 26
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/3357/U3357I1300646767.SEQ.0.jpg

[MC JC86]

Thanks Stuart John, helpful.

[Stuart John]

No problem. I find the older 105 2.5 in F mount and my Industar 26 give me what I have been looking for. I need to find a 35mm lens that will go with them as well.

[Borghesia]

No problem. I find the older 105 2.5 in F mount and my Industar 26 give me what I have been looking for. I need to find a 35mm lens that will go with them as well.

The Nikkor 35mm f2.0 (pre-ai/ai) is one of the finest 35mm I came across, being sharp but also having a vintage feel and depth in the results.

[Stuart John]

I missed the 35mm O. There was one that sat in my local camera store for two years. I even shot a test roll with it but when I finaly decided I would buy it it was gone. I picked up the 35mm F2.5 E it is a nice small compact lens and produces nice images but renders images differently.

[MC JC86]

The Nikkor 35mm f2.0 (pre-ai/ai) is one of the finest 35mm I came across, being sharp but also having a vintage feel and depth in the results.

The 2.8 and the O 2.0 35s are next on my list. Right now I'm going to shoot an F or F2 with the 105 with my 3,5cm 1.8 Nikkor on a rangefinder when I want to walk about with 2 cameras at the same time. I love all these old Nikkors and wish I hadn't sold most of mine over the years, just rebuilding the collection now.

[MC JC86]

I think anyone who wants a quick example of how ridiculous online conversations on seemingly innocuous topics can spiral into insanity should view this thread that I tripped over on Flickr while trying to figure out which 105 to order. http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor/discuss/72157608430677713/

Quickly deteriorates into freakin' out and name callin (mostly due to one party), pretty funny actually

[Brian Sweeney]

I quit that group a long time ago.

There are external differences in the appearance of the SOnnar and Planar formula 105's. The Sonnar has a thinner focusing ring than does the model that replaced it.

I have several of each type of lens, S-mount, Leica Mount, early "pat pending" F-mount, later Sonnar, multicoated non-AI Planar, and AI Planar. They are all good.

[Timestep]

both the earlier rangefinder and early slr lenses are sonnar formula.
in 1973--six months before i ordered an slr version, they changed to a gauss formula. i have both; and even these older versions are two of the great lenses for 35mm cameras.

[Steve M.]

I had one of the early SLR non AI versions w/ the small rear element. That thing was really sharp! You can pick them up for $60 to $80 I think. It wasn't a Leica R 90 Summicron, but it wasn't $800 either. For one tenth the price, and sharp as a tack, hard to go wrong.

[MC JC86]

Thanks for the advice guys. I finally got around to testing that lens out, works great really like it.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5729476088_cbe7dbcaf9_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3300/5728922861_4a36c9ebe6_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3416/5728922843_fca8167b32_z.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/5728922825_b16fca7b04_z.jpg

All with Nikon F2, Tri-x @ 400 in D76

[Contarama]

They are all good.

What he said...

Personally I think I am going to opt for a non Ai later version in 105...then I would like a sonnar 135/3.5 and the earlier 85 that was the bomb in 60's fashion photography. :)

Good trial shots BTW MC...

[RanceEric]

Nice test shots. Great lens. Handsome subject ;) haha

[jdriffill]

The test shots look great. Did you establish whether your lens is early enough and has the same optics as the RF version, or is the later planar-type (5/4) formula?

The size and shape of the rear lens surface distinguishes them quite clearly. The RF version has a smaller diameter and is flat (or at least very nearly flat) whereas the later F mount version is larger diameter and convex.

As Rance Eric has the RF lens, and you have an F-mount version, you'll have ample opportunity to compare their performance.

Handsome subject Won't argue with that.

All the best, John

[peterm1]

HI all. I read the other post (the one that went feral on Flicker. ) WOW! Some people are just weird.

Now someone may have already posted this (I have not read all of this thread.) But as to MC JC86 's question about serial numbers this may help.

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

Its a great resource for Nikkor lens info. Click on the link for each lens type and it will take you to a page with more info inclusing photos of that variant.

On refelction you should also go here - Lots and lots and lots of Nikon and Nikkor info.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/index.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/105mmnikkor/index.htm (Almost at the bottom of this page you will find links to lots of variants of the 105)

I own an early chrome barrelled sonnar version of the 105 Nikkor that has been AI'd and use it with my D200. I love it. While its technically not as sharp as the lens design that came later it has nice "rounded" rendering".....That "sharp yet soft" look that Sonnar lenses can be so good at. And its bokeh is sublime.

[Ronald M]

Later Gauss design has a rear element that fills the mount areas. Sonar version rear element is around half that size. All other differences are cosmetic or mechanical.

The Gauss is better in very close range at 2.8. Other than that, the pics are same.

[ray*j*gun]

Thanks Peter great resources!!

[MC JC86]

The test shots look great. Did you establish whether your lens is early enough and has the same optics as the RF version, or is the later planar-type (5/4) formula?

The size and shape of the rear lens surface distinguishes them quite clearly. The RF version has a smaller diameter and is flat (or at least very nearly flat) whereas the later F mount version is larger diameter and convex.

As Rance Eric has the RF lens, and you have an F-mount version, you'll have ample opportunity to compare their performance.

Won't argue with that.

All the best, John


It's the Sonnar version, was $69 on KEH. The pictures I took with it and posted here were done with a KEH sourced black Nikon F2 which was $45. I love that film is dead.

[jdriffill]

It's the Sonnar version, was $69 on KEH. The pictures I took with it and posted here were done with a KEH sourced black Nikon F2 which was $45. I love that film is dead.

You are very fortunate. What great bargains! I should look at KEH more often. Locally (i.e., in and around London) these things cost a lot more as a rule.

All the best, John

[puderse]

Back when Ektachrome was only 3 I was a still photographer for the Army. I purchased a couple of Fs and one of my first lenses was the 2.5/105. I still shoot it on the original cameras and some later bodies. The best lens I ever used. P, P-C, PC or whatever.