Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Nikon Historical Society

Nikon Historical Society -- hosted by the founding member Bob Rotoloni and members of the society. The NHS, based the US, has a worldwide membership. Our "Nikon Journal," published four times a year, concentrates on the history of Japanese photo equipment from the perspective of the Nikon Camera Company. The Nikon Journal often includes Nikon information not published anywhere else in the world. This forum provides an opportunity for conversation between collectors and users of classic film Nikons. See forum “stickies” for more information about the Society. If you are a serious Nikon Collector, you MUST be a NHS member. Join at http://www.nikonhistoricalsociety.com/!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

105 f/2.5 Nikkor P - p.c.
Old 04-05-2011   #1
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
105 f/2.5 Nikkor P - p.c.

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.
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #2
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
Awesome. Thanks a lot!
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #3
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,759
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.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #4
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
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.
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #5
ray*j*gun
Registered User
 
ray*j*gun's Avatar
 
ray*j*gun is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 2,320
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.
__________________
Raymond
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #6
kievman
Kievman
 
kievman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 214
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #7
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by kievman View Post
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.
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #8
Stuart John
Registered User
 
Stuart John's Avatar
 
Stuart John is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 574
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.


I find it goes very well with my Industar 26 on my FED3. Here is one fron the Industar 26
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/
http://www.sjmphotography.co.nr/

Canonet QL17, Canonet 28, Zorki C

Last edited by Stuart John : 04-06-2011 at 10:27.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #9
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
Thanks Stuart John, helpful.
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #10
Stuart John
Registered User
 
Stuart John's Avatar
 
Stuart John is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 574
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.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/
http://www.sjmphotography.co.nr/

Canonet QL17, Canonet 28, Zorki C
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #11
Borghesia
Registered User
 
Borghesia's Avatar
 
Borghesia is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Age: 55
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart John View Post
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.
__________________
My gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #12
Stuart John
Registered User
 
Stuart John's Avatar
 
Stuart John is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 574
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.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/
http://www.sjmphotography.co.nr/

Canonet QL17, Canonet 28, Zorki C
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #13
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borghesia View Post
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.
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #14
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
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/...7608430677713/

Quickly deteriorates into freakin' out and name callin (mostly due to one party), pretty funny actually
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-06-2011   #15
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,922
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2011   #16
Timestep
Registered User
 
Timestep is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2011   #17
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,398
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2011   #18
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
Thanks for the advice guys. I finally got around to testing that lens out, works great really like it.








All with Nikon F2, Tri-x @ 400 in D76
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/




Last edited by MC JC86 : 05-16-2011 at 22:28.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2011   #19
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
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...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2011   #20
RanceEric
The name is Rance
 
RanceEric's Avatar
 
RanceEric is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New York, NY
Age: 27
Posts: 688
Nice test shots. Great lens. Handsome subject haha
__________________
Nikon SP, S3
W-Nikkor.C 3.5cm f/1.8, Nikkor-S 5cm f/1.4, Nikkor P.C 8.5cm f/2, Nikkor P.C 10.5cm f/2.5
VC Skopar 35mm f/2.5, VC Nokton 50mm f/1.5
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-18-2011   #21
jdriffill
Registered User
 
jdriffill is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Singapore
Posts: 82
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RanceEric View Post
Handsome subject
Won't argue with that.

All the best, John

Last edited by jdriffill : 05-18-2011 at 00:20.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-18-2011   #22
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,017
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...rces/index.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...kkor/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.

Last edited by peterm1 : 05-18-2011 at 02:54.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-18-2011   #23
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,072
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-18-2011   #24
ray*j*gun
Registered User
 
ray*j*gun's Avatar
 
ray*j*gun is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 2,320
Thanks Peter great resources!!
__________________
Raymond
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-18-2011   #25
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
 
MC JC86's Avatar
 
MC JC86 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdriffill View Post
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.
__________________
Sometimes I think I have too many cameras and lenses, then I realize: I just don't have enough shelf space.


http://www.flickr.com/people/morecamerasthantalent/



  Reply With Quote

Old 05-20-2011   #26
jdriffill
Registered User
 
jdriffill is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Singapore
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC JC86 View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

2.5/105
Old 05-31-2011   #27
puderse
Registered User
 
puderse's Avatar
 
puderse is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Where the west begins
Posts: 147
2.5/105

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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2013   #28
M Currie
Registered User
 
M Currie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 40
I have never had the earlier Sonnar version for comparison, but I have the first generation of the pre-AI Gauss version, single coated, fluted focus ring, etc. The Sonnar may be better, but I don't know how it could be much better unless it does your laundry or something.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2017   #29
mnutzer
Registered User
 
mnutzer is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 30
Nikkor PC 2.5-105mm ltm on Leica IIIa syn

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2017   #30
richardHaw
junk scavenger
 
richardHaw's Avatar
 
richardHaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 110
tried and used every version of that lens (except tickmark) and all I can say is that they perform very much the same for general use. the Sonnar is my preferred version although the later "Gauss" version should be better because of the flatter field. this lens family is something special. I am writing a series on that lens family in my Nikon blog, from the RF version to the last.
__________________
Take me down to the Parallax City
Where the viewfinder's tiny
And the framing is tricky
http://www.richardhaw.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #31
richardHaw
junk scavenger
 
richardHaw's Avatar
 
richardHaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 110
preparing an illustration for my blog post this weekend

the differences between the images made are very subtle but you can see it if you bothered to look for it personally, I prefer the Sonnar's rendering.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg sonnarGauss.jpg (17.2 KB, 8 views)
__________________
Take me down to the Parallax City
Where the viewfinder's tiny
And the framing is tricky
http://www.richardhaw.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:26.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.