Opinions on the Nikon 105mm 2.8 ais

[crumpet8]

hey,

I shoot an f3 and a d750 with a 50mm 1.2 ais and Zeiss 100mm zf2

The Zeiss 100mm makro-planar is amazing, but I'm thinking of downsizing my dslr kit to Fujifilms offerings and selling the Zeiss for something cheaper.

How's the 105mm 2.8 micro stack up? Sharp wide open? Much CA or distortion? I've made some 40x50cm prints with the 50mm that are very sharp and wonderful.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

It's a good lens. I only shot with it mainly on film, but used it a couple times on a D1H. I actually prefer the older 105/4 AIS to the 2.8 version. Not sure why, but, I do.

-J

 

[Paul Howell]

I had both the non AIS 2.5 which I upgraded to AIS then later the 2.8 version, both were very good, the 2.8 has better coatings, otherwise very similar design. When working as a PJ the 105 was my "normal lens."

 

[benveniste]

I had both the non AIS 2.5 which I upgraded to AIS then later the 2.8 version, both were very good, the 2.8 has better coatings, otherwise very similar design. When working as a PJ the 105 was my "normal lens."

The f/2.8 version is a macro lens with 10 elements in 9 groups. The 105mm f/2.5 isn't a macro and uses 5 elements in either 3 or 4 groups. I can't see how those designs are similar.

I used the 105mm f/2.8 AI-s micro very briefly. No fault of the lens -- A shelving collapse destroyed my Vivitar 100mm macro. I bought the 105mm, my wife bought me a Tokina 90mm f/2.5 macro, and I quietly resold the 105mm.) For macro "stuff," where you are stopping down to obtain more depth of field, it performs quite well. But at or near wide open and at distance, the Zeiss is a far better lens.

 

[mshchem]

I'm thinking of downsizing my dslr kit to Fujifilms offerings

Not sure you what Fuji system you are after. I have a Nikon D3 and a D800, I have a 85mm f 1.4 AF-D, amazing lens! I have a good friend that uses a Fuji X2 rangefinder type digital. He uses the 35mm f2 standard and the 56mm f1.2 He really likes this setup. I've been shooting Nikon since 1973 the 105 lenses are nice. I would love to have a Nikon 105 DC lens that allows for defocus control.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

hey,

I shoot an f3 and a d750 with a 50mm 1.2 ais and Zeiss 100mm zf2

The Zeiss 100mm makro-planar is amazing, but I'm thinking of downsizing my dslr kit to Fujifilms offerings and selling the Zeiss for something cheaper.

How's the 105mm 2.8 micro stack up? Sharp wide open? Much CA or distortion? I've made some 40x50cm prints with the 50mm that are very sharp and wonderful.

I'd check KenRockwell's site and his evaluation because, I was never disappointed by his advise.

 

[Dan Fromm]

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

[Paul Howell]

The f/2.8 version is a macro lens with 10 elements in 9 groups. The 105mm f/2.5 isn't a macro and uses 5 elements in either 3 or 4 groups. I can't see how those designs are similar.

I used the 105mm f/2.8 AI-s micro very briefly. No fault of the lens -- A shelving collapse destroyed my Vivitar 100mm macro. I bought the 105mm, my wife bought me a Tokina 90mm f/2.5 macro, and I quietly resold the 105mm.) For macro "stuff," where you are stopping down to obtain more depth of field, it performs quite well. But at or near wide open and at distance, the Zeiss is a far better lens.

Your right, after 30 years my memories are somewhat fuzzy, first clue, why would moving from a 2.5 to 2.8 be an upgrade, it was the 1.8, used it for a year then I retired, when I got back wife was not happy when she found what I paid for it and only used professionally for a year. The only bright side is that when my gear was stolen after 911 at LAX my insurance covered the cost of the lens when it was new, made my wife happy.