Well, that depends upon the lens type, as you said. This is a Sonnar clone, and a telephoto design to boot - and if it behaves like the Tessar it was drived from, a tiny error in spacing will completely spoil the definition. Some lenses such as the Plasmat type are far less critical of spacing, say a few percent of the focal length - but the Plasmat's immediate ancestor the Dagor is very critical regarding spacing. The shorter the focal length, the smaller the errors which can be tolerated regardless of design. An error of .001" spoiling the performance is not uncommon with certain types.
Originally Posted by clayne
I don't disagree, but these lenses weren't exactly hand-assembled and individually checked when produced either...
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
How on earth were they assembled then?
Originally Posted by clayne
It would seem that the OP's experience goes a long way to verify what I said, which by the way was not an opinion but based upon experience.
As far as whether or not Nikon performed optical testing on every single lens, the performance of these now 40~ year old optics suggests that whatever they did, and however they did it, the results were and are superb.
Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 07-08-2013 at 12:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I second this
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
Even wide open it's up there with my new Canon L telephoto glass
I have the very early silvernose NKK version with 6 blade aperture and single-coat glass and I liked it so much it made me convert my 5D to hybrid (split-image focus screen, lens adapter) so I could use it on d*****l.
My only complaint is the filter threads are a very soft metal I bent mine just setting it on the ground and filters are difficult to mount, I remedied this by smashing an old scratched UV and mounting the ring on the end of the lens
Very good lens, I was actually thinking of the Canon 100/2 but after shooting this on film and on d*****l I'm sold on the 105
5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / Meyer Gorlitz 13.5cm/4,5 Trioplan / Bausch & Lomb Zeiss-Tessar 5x8 f4.5
Mamiya 645 / 150 f3.5 N, WLF, metered prism finder, left grip
FED-2 / 50 2.8 Industar 26m / 85/2 Jupiter-9
Canon 300v / 5D d*****l / L lenses
I have a 105 P, 126xxx, and it's pretty sweet. Designed as a short telephoto, Nikon changed the formula to the gauss when they became aware people were using it for close range portraits. The newer design is better close up and even manages to improve on performance at distance, if that was even possible. Mine is damn near equivalent to my AiS, and only when pixel peeping or with really big enlargements; like 30x.
An epoch ago the man at the traveling Nikon School told me Nikon matched lens elements to the entire assembly, letting a weak element here compensate for a strong element there. That was why, if you sent a lens to Nikon to have a front element replaced (and they did that back then), it was so expensive. They'd have to find a match for that specific lens element, or grind one.
Enjoy it. If there is such a thing as the singular Nikkor classic the 105 is probably it.
I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
- Garry Winogrand
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)