• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Seek for lens advice on Nikon F2

competent, portable and inexpensive: 105/2.5, 85/2; could-not-do-without-now: 105/1.8, 85/1.8 H.C

make sure you match lens aperture transmission mechanism to the head on your F2; some combinations work better
 
darkosaric said:
105/2.5. Only question is: newer one, or older nikkor-p .
Click to expand...

I like the older Nikkor-P but I like more moderate contrast for most of my B&W work I do with this lens.
 
Definitely the 105mm for outdoor portraits. The 50mm is handy for indoor half-lengths, the35mm for relating a subject to their background.
 
Some Nikon portrait photographers use other lenses, too, like the 85mm and 135 to good advantage.
 
BrianShaw said:
Some Nikon portrait photographers use other lenses, too, like the 85mm and 135 to good advantage.
Click to expand...

Yes, the 85 would be good if you don't have a lot of space to work with. But it costs twice or more what 105s go for. The 135/3.5 can be had very inexpensively, it seems to be an undervalued lens - but it requires more working room.
 
E. von Hoegh said:
Yes, the 85 would be good if you don't have a lot of space to work with. But it costs twice or more what 105s go for. The 135/3.5 can be had very inexpensively, it seems to be an undervalued lens - but it requires more working room.
Click to expand...
^^^ What HE said! ^^^
 
I think the 135/3.5 is way too sharp for a portrait lens. If you are shooting grandpas and want to capture every pore and crease in their skin, then yes. If you want to shoot a relatively young female, you're playing with fire.
Also, the lens can do some crazy backgrounds with fuzzy hexagons and stuff unless you are careful what's behind the model and how far behind it is.
 
The 105mm Nikkor is really a nice lens. I've heard good things about the 85mm Nikkor.

But you certainly cannot go wrong with the 105.

The nice thing about film is that it can hide some flaws. Ask any 35+ woman if she wants to be photographed in hi-def.
 

I had the 135/3.5 Nikkor Q, I sold it and got a 105 because the 135 was either too long, or not long enough. I'd say the 105 Sonnar type is just as sharp, probably sharper - and the 105 Gauss type is even sharper close up. But then I use an Apo Artar for a portrait lens on LF, I like sharp portrait lenses. You can always make a sharp negative less sharp, the converse is not true.
 
So, as a matter of interest, how would one know which 105 is a Sonnar and which a Gauss ? Serial #? max aperture? shape/size?
 
Serial number is one way. The other, which I am not 100% sure in and which is based on empirical evidence more than actual knowledge, is the size of the rear element - Sonnar has a smaller rear element than Gauss. Since we are talking about 105/2.5, all versions have the same max aperture of 2.5. If the lens has a buit-in hood, it's definitely a Gauss because it's the latest version of the lens (AI-S) which is of Gauss type. If it doesn't have a built-in hood, it can be either.
 
ok, thanks - but there are also 105/2.8 and 105/4 aren't there? and only two posts refer specifically to a 105/2.5
 
I am quite sure that they all thought of the 105/2.5. I could be wrong, but I doubt.
 
OldBodyOldSoul said:
I am quite sure that they all thought of the 105/2.5. I could be wrong, but I doubt.
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant the 105/2.5. Old one. It's a well known Classic Nikon lens. Gorgeous signature.
 
pdeeh said:
ok, thanks - but there are also 105/2.8 and 105/4 aren't there? and only two posts refer specifically to a 105/2.5
Click to expand...

The 105/2.5 has a history going back to the late 1940s - when someone mentions "105 Nikkor", there's really only the one; that is the classic Sonnar design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register