Nikon 105mm f/2.5

[Cholentpot]

I also have the 100/2.8 Series-E (got it in-box for $100, so couldn't resist). It is _super_ compact, doesn't even seem like a telephoto. It is single-coated, so does flare, but seems to render rather well for such a cheap&cheerful 4/4 optical design. Given how much I love my 105/2.5 AiS, the 100/2.8E probably won't get much use, but I agree it "ain't too bad"!

E lenses were budget back in the day. They sure do feel premium now though.

 

[grant.goodes]

E lenses were budget back in the day. They sure do feel premium now though.

Yeah, as a teenager I worked at the camera counter of a major department store, and I remember when the EM and E-series lenses first appeared. The prices were _substantially_ cheaper than anything else we sold, and they were actually quite popular. Being a minimum wage student, I certainly wasn't buying new camera gear, and had no horse in that race. It was clear that these were more plasticky lenses (especially the first all-black versions), but you're right, compared to the modern plastic-fantastic approach to consumer goods, the second generation Series E (which my 100/2.8 belongs too) feels like it deserves to be called a Nikkor, even though it lacks that designation.

 

[reddesert]

I got a Nikkor 105/2.5 as my first lens when I got into the Nikon SLR system in 1985 (my previous SLR broke). At that time it was already both "vintage" and legendary - I bought it along with a Nikon F, which was well out of date being about 15 years old (Ha!)

Anyway, the 105/2.5 was already advocated as a legendary lens for portraits and such, but I'm not sure in 1985 that the legend made anything out of the difference between the Sonnar and Xenotar designs. Maybe it was in photo magazines somewhere, but that seems like the kind of distinction that gets amplified later by (excuse my opinion) the hairsplitting that internet photography talk often encourages. It should be possible to take a good portrait with any of the designs.

The 105 that I got in 1985 happens to be a Sonnar AI-converted, and I was always happy with the results (some are in my university yearbook). I think I have another couple of 105's acquired over the years, but have never tried to do a systematic comparison; it would probably take time I ought to spend making pictures.

 

[Cholentpot]

Yeah, as a teenager I worked at the camera counter of a major department store, and I remember when the EM and E-series lenses first appeared. The prices were _substantially_ cheaper than anything else we sold, and they were actually quite popular. Being a minimum wage student, I certainly wasn't buying new camera gear, and had no horse in that race. It was clear that these were more plasticky lenses (especially the first all-black versions), but you're right, compared to the modern plastic-fantastic approach to consumer goods, the second generation Series E (which my 100/2.8 belongs too) feels like it deserves to be called a Nikkor, even though it lacks that designation.

The E series hasn't ballooned in prices because people still go with 'they're junk' idea. Which I'm fine with.

I got a Nikkor 105/2.5 as my first lens when I got into the Nikon SLR system in 1985 (my previous SLR broke). At that time it was already both "vintage" and legendary - I bought it along with a Nikon F, which was well out of date being about 15 years old (Ha!)

Anyway, the 105/2.5 was already advocated as a legendary lens for portraits and such, but I'm not sure in 1985 that the legend made anything out of the difference between the Sonnar and Xenotar designs. Maybe it was in photo magazines somewhere, but that seems like the kind of distinction that gets amplified later by (excuse my opinion) the hairsplitting that internet photography talk often encourages. It should be possible to take a good portrait with any of the designs.

The 105 that I got in 1985 happens to be a Sonnar AI-converted, and I was always happy with the results (some are in my university yearbook). I think I have another couple of 105's acquired over the years, but have never tried to do a systematic comparison; it would probably take time I ought to spend making pictures.

I've taken some of my best photos with the 105, either copy. Maybe I just like the focal.

 

[skahde]

The 100mm and 135 mm Series E look quite similar in optical formula to the 3.5/135 mm AI(s) which I like quite a lot.

Nikon Series E lenses -100-135mm focal length

Nikkor 135mm f3.5 Lens

 

[outwest]

When I started my Nikon F kit in 1968, my first 3 lenses were the 50 1.4 (of course!), the 55 micro, and the 105 2.5. The 105 2.5 was the star of the bunch and I could hardly believe how good it was.

 

[Kino]

I wonder if these are optically based/related to the 105mm printing Nikkor?

I have the 95 and 105mm printing Nikkors but they were made for 1:1 copying and used extensively in motion picture use.

 

[grant.goodes]

I wonder if these are optically based/related to the 105mm printing Nikkor?

I very much doubt it, as the Printing-Nikkor is f/2.8 and according to this website is a 12/4 design. All the PN lenses are awesome and I am jealous you have two of them! I will content myself with the AM-ED 120/5.6, which is likely as much lens as my minor talents really need.

 

[grant.goodes]

I got a Nikkor 105/2.5 as my first lens when I got into the Nikon SLR system in 1985 (my previous SLR broke). At that time it was already both "vintage" and legendary - I bought it along with a Nikon F, which was well out of date being about 15 years old (Ha!)

Sounds like we were thinking the same things at the same time! I bought my first SLR setup around 1985 as well, on a trip back to my hometown of Toronto from Copenhagen where I had just moved. Danish prices on camera gear was unbelievably unpleasant, so my photographer friend took me on a guided tour of all the used camera shops and pawn shops in Toronto. I followed his recommendations (he was a Nikon guy), along with my own inclinations. I found a nice FE and a minty 105/2.5 AiS in a single shop, and made a package deal. I wanted a wide-angle, but they were in very short supply in the camera stores. Finally found an AI-converted 24/2.8 N.C. in a pawn shop, and bought that "as is". For many years, this two-lens setup was my photographic home, and I found both lenses performed well beyond my ability to find flaws with them! Legendary indeed..

 

[Kino]

I very much doubt it, as the Printing-Nikkor is f/2.8 and according to this website is a 12/4 design. All the PN lenses are awesome and I am jealous you have two of them! I will content myself with the AM-ED 120/5.6, which is likely as much lens as my minor talents really need.

Well, they are nice and all, but not really designed for general photography. They came with my 35mm motion picture optical printer. Great for 1:1 but not really much else...

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

My parents got a Nikkor105/2.5 along with either our second Nikkormat or first Nikon body. (We'd started our Nikon journey in 1963 with a Nikkorex F and a 50/2.) Its serial number indicates it was made in 1966. That 105 was THE lens that convinced my sheet film-chauvanist dad that 35mm had come of age and was worthwhile for commercial use, not just for family vacation slides.

That lens had heavy use in their studio for decades, then sat in an equipment cabinet unused for ten or fifteen years. It has never needed a CLA.

I began using it again around 15 years ago with a surviving F2 body (though my main lens was the tiny, nearly weightless 45/2.8 GN). Of course, this lens is still amazing. Some shots on Tri-X from recent years.