Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,955   Posts: 1,586,017   Online: 680
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Whoops, sorry my bad you're completely correct. Not enough coffee yet. What I meant is that ultimately a small shift in the rear shouldn't result in massive offness (subject to lens design of course) but a change in some optical aspect that usually ends up being compensated for by literally focusing the lens.
    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.

  2. #22
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    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.
    I don't disagree, but these lenses weren't exactly hand-assembled and individually checked when produced either...
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    I don't disagree, but these lenses weren't exactly hand-assembled and individually checked when produced either...
    How on earth were they assembled then?

    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.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,189
    Images
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by BMbikerider View Post
    I have the later 105 lens (AIS) and there is a ring with 4 slots each at 90 degrees to each other. There obviously has been a change with the later lens which incidentally is about my sharpest optic of the bunch.
    I second this

    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, under the knife for a bit
    4x5 Graphic View / Schneider 180 / Ektar 127
    RB67 Pro S / 50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    Random 35mm stuff

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    663
    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.

    s-a
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin