Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AI vs 135mm f/2.8 AI

[ciennepi]

Hi, this is my first post on APUG.
For my Nikon FE I'm searching a short tele for portrait, landscape and general photography. I own the 24mm f/2.8 AI and the 50mm f/1.8 AI.
Someone that own both the lens in the title can tell me if, in term of resolution, contrast and sharpness, are of the same level or the 105mm is better? Thank you.

 

[Jesper]

I would say that the choice is more about which focal lentgh that you feel most comfortable with. They are both good lenses.

 

[CGW]

Hi, this is my first post on APUG.
For my Nikon FE I'm searching a short tele for portrait, landscape and general photography. I own the 24mm f/2.8 AI and the 50mm f/1.8 AI.
Someone that own both the lens in the title can tell me if, in term of resolution, contrast and sharpness, are of the same level or the 105mm is better? Thank you.

There's nothing magical about the 105-vs-135mm Nikkors--both are nice lenses. Have a look here for lens reviews, specs, etc., www.nikonlinks.com

 

[Jim Jones]

I found the 105mm lens more useful, but it's mostly a matter of personal taste.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Again personal taste: I find 135mm not so useful...
(I'd rather have a short tele + a 180 or 200).

 

[bblhed]

I have the two lenses you have and the two you are asking about plus more, I have a gear problem, but on to your question.

I find that the 50 and the 105 end up on my FA the most, my 135 is a little too big and clunky for my taste. I find that I only use the 135 when I want to be a little farther away when shooting my kid. i find that the 105 puts you at a nice comfortable distance for shooting portraits, just far enough to be at a comfortable distance, just close enough that you don't need to raise your voice if you need your subject to look, move, or something else.

that didn't answer your question, or did it? I would have to say that at similar apertures all four lenses perform the same as far as sharpness and picture quality goes. I will mention that if you get a 105, you want to make sure you get one with a built in lens hood, or that you get a lens hood for it. If you are shooting indoors it isn't an issue, but that lens is prone to flaring.

 

[Ap507b]

I own both & agree with what has been said in the previous posts. They are both fine lenses that can produce very nice images & image quality wise I wouldn't select one over the other to be honest.

Now that I have it, I tend to favour the 105mm for photographing people, but other than that, I don't favour one over the other.

The 135mm seems to get a bad rap which I think is a bit unfair. Still, thanks to it I was able to pick up a pair of them for peanuts a few years ago. The 105mm cost me half as much again as the pair of 135mm's did. A price premium for its portrait lens reputation perhaps? I have taken some nice portraits with the 135mm though.

 

[lxdude]

Both perform very well. The 105 is famous for its sharpness and bokeh. I would get the 105 focal length as you mention portraits.

 

[2F/2F]

Either will be great for portraits or anything else. I'd consider working distance from your subject and how much or how little of the background you want to show. Also, remember to think about the one-over-focal-length rule of thumb. 135 is one of my most used lenses, but I do not shoot with it hand held below '250 if I do not have the time to devote to very carefully holding the camera and very softly releasing the shutter. I can use a 100mm lens at '125 no problem, though. You may be better or worse at hand holding than I am.

 

[ciennepi]

Thanks to all. I understand that both are good lens and comparable in term of sharpness. The 105mm seems more versatile to use handheld and I shoot the FE almost ever handheld (my Mamiya RB often goes on the tripod ;-) ) so I will search a 105mm 2.5 AI or AIS because the optical scheme are the same, right?

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have both of the lenses you are considering; a search should yield more information.

The 105 is easier to use, but the 135 f/2.8 is a very, very nice lens and dirt cheap (usually).

The lens was modified in 1970 with the C mount, starting from serial number 407301 onwards, this configuration onwards is still the same configuration in the last Ai-S which was probably about 1993.

The main difference between the C mount, K mount and Ai-S mount, is that the Ai-S mount, which starts from serial number 890001 (manufacture start date 08/81-) has an inbuilt lens hood.

The inbuilt lens hood is brilliant, it’s always there, slides out of the way if not required or you fit a polarising filter.

I would suggest that the Ai-S is probably the best of the f/2.5 105 Nikkor lenses.

Source of information:- Nikon Compendium by Hillebrand and Hauschild, plus my own experiences.

Mick.

 

[CGW]

You might also look into the Nikon 100/2.8 E series lens--very compact(not much bigger than a 50mm)and very sharp. If you're curious about things like minimum focus distances, etc., you really should research the lens section on the nikonlinks site I linked above.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I would go with the 105.

Jeff

 

[finstu]

I like the 105 2.5 I have one of the very early versions with a silver barrel before the lens was configuration was changed. It has been Ai converted at some time before I bought it so workes great on my FM2.

portravc400_web by photogsjm, on Flickr

 

[Mark Crabtree]

105 f2.5 is a great classic lens

The 135 f2.8 is a perfectly okay lens, but the 105 f2.5 if one the truly great classic lenses from Nikon; don't pass up a chance to own and use one.

You can always add a 135 f3.5 for next to nothing (mine was even free) if you want to have the longer focal length available. It is a very fine lens and may even be just a bit better than the 2.8 version (and much smaller).

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have seen prints from a friend who used my darkroom to enlarge negatives from the Nikon 100 f/2.8 E lens, compared to the 105, they were not quite on the money from a technical point of view.

The Nikon 100 f/2.8 E only has four elements in four groups, this lens is single coated. Providing you use an NIC-coated UV or Skylight filter along with the hood, you should be fine.

The Nikkor 135 f/3.5 is a reasonable lens, I had one 30 odd years ago that was converted to Ai mount, it is more or less in the same performance boat as the Nikon 100 f/2.8 E and original Nikkor 105 f/2.5.

Eventually I was able to acquire the Nikkor 135 f/2.8 with 4 elements in 4 groups, instead of the 4 elements in 3 groups. This quite outstanding 135 lens, certainly has a noticeable difference, even just looking at the negatives on a light box. The Nikkor 135 f/2.8 in Ai-S mount, started manufacture in 09/81 and serial number 900001 onwards.

Mick.

 

[CGW]

I have seen prints from a friend who used my darkroom to enlarge negatives from the Nikon 100 f/2.8 E lens, compared to the 105, they were not quite on the money from a technical point of view.

Meaning? Funny but mine's always delivered the goods. Used intelligently with a hood, the 100/2.8's single coating is a non-issue. It's a sleeper lens that's usually panned by people who never shot it.

 

[Mick Fagan]

CGW, I have shot with this lens, I have used one a fair bit, but one day in the darkroom I had a friend over and we developed some film, his and mine, then did some prints.

We had attended the same event, motorcycle trials event actually, and a fair number of our frames were of near identical pictures.

What was noticeable was the contrast difference, the detail difference (resolution) and as you have already noted, flair from the odd shot taken into the light.

We did then put our cameras on tripods and looked through our respective viewfinders with our 100 and 105 Nikon and Nikkor lenses attached, you could see the difference in the viewfinder if you looked carefully.

There is nothing wrong with the 100 E Nikon lens, but it really isn't in the same league as the 105, especially the last 105 in Ai-S mount.

I also run a Sigma 18mm f/3.5, doing the same comparison as above on tripods with my friend's 18 f/3.5 with CRC (Close Range Correction) on his tripod, there was an immediate contrast difference apparent, as well as a slight lack of detail (resolution) in the Sigma.

Essentially one often pays for what one gets, whether the difference is worth it, is up to the individual.

In my case the 105 is my most important lens, so it had priority and I got what I believe is the best for my camera body. With the 18mm it is a low priority lens, so accordingly, I purchased a lower and therefore far cheaper lens.

Mick.

 

[CGW]

CGW, I have shot with this lens, I have used one a fair bit, but one day in the darkroom I had a friend over and we developed some film, his and mine, then did some prints.

We had attended the same event, motorcycle trials event actually, and a fair number of our frames were of near identical pictures.

What was noticeable was the contrast difference, the detail difference (resolution) and as you have already noted, flair from the odd shot taken into the light.

We did then put our cameras on tripods and looked through our respective viewfinders with our 100 and 105 Nikon and Nikkor lenses attached, you could see the difference in the viewfinder if you looked carefully.

There is nothing wrong with the 100 E Nikon lens, but it really isn't in the same league as the 105, especially the last 105 in Ai-S mount.

I also run a Sigma 18mm f/3.5, doing the same comparison as above on tripods with my friend's 18 f/3.5 with CRC (Close Range Correction) on his tripod, there was an immediate contrast difference apparent, as well as a slight lack of detail (resolution) in the Sigma.

Essentially one often pays for what one gets, whether the difference is worth it, is up to the individual.

In my case the 105 is my most important lens, so it had priority and I got what I believe is the best for my camera body. With the 18mm it is a low priority lens, so accordingly, I purchased a lower and therefore far cheaper lens.

Mick.

Happy you're convinced but there was no science(i.e., control) in your "test." I've never noted any unfortunate influence on contrast and resolution that I could blame on the 100/2.8. Any lens will flare, coatings notwithstanding. Funny that Nikon never carried over the 105 outside of the Micro and DC versions. For a portrait length, the old 85/1.8 NAI works best for me.

 

[dynachrome]

105/2.5 AI vs. 135/2.8 AI

The 135/2.8 Nikkor sold in 1970 is completely diffrerent from the 135/2.8 AI made from 1977 to 1981. The AI lens is smaller, lighter and has a different formula. It was sold briefly as a late (2nd version) 'K' lens. My 135 f/2.8 Nikkors are all from before the design change. I have two Qs, a QC and a 'K.' One of the Qs has a factory AI ring on it. The QC is the one I use the most. It has the improved coating and also the beautiful out of focus rendition of the old design.

The 105/2.5 AI is better suited to portrait shooting. It focuses just closer than 1 meter. If I want to use a 135 and get closer I will put on a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 or a 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing.

 

[j-dogg]

Nikkor pre-AI 105/2.5 PC is probably hands down the single best portrait lens ever made.

 

[Pumalite]

+1

 

[PhotoJim]

I have both, but if I had to give one up it'd be the 135. I use the 135 only occasionally, the 105 regularly.

As mentioned, the 105/2.5 Nikkor is a legendary lens that is incredibly good. The 135 is a good lens but does not have the same reputation.

Get the 105 first - the reach difference is minor but the extra half stop is quite useful. If you find yourself still wondering about the 135, they can be had used for well under a hundred dollars so having both is not out of the question.

 

[ciennepi]

Thank you all for the answers. I have find a Nikkor 105mm 2.5 AIS for $186 in excellence condition (lens perfect, no dings, brass, scratches, oil on the iris, ecc). Do you think the price is right?

 

[Mick Fagan]

Yes, that is around the price range of what I would call a good lens in good condition.

Prices in Australia for these lenses range from $120 for very well used ones to about $400 for pristine, with the majority of well kept lenses going around the $200 to 250 mark.

Prices converted to USD from AUD.

Mick.