Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: 105/2.5, was Lenses without digital Bodies, Anyone?
From: pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)
Date: Tue Aug 31 17:23:42 2004
References: <200408312050.i7VKiAcx028417@server1.waverley.reid.org>

B. D. - The 85/2 Nikkor is a nearly identical design to the 105/2.5 IIRC.
I had the 85/2 in LTM for while.  I liked it very much for concert
shooting.

Here it is wide open, in color, on a scanned Provia slide:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/roar.htm

The in-focus image is certainly usable at 5x7 or letter size.  The bokeh
is double-line and kind of distracting.

When the background is dark, or not very far away, the 85/2 is a great
lens, decent wide open and all you need at f/2.8 and beyond.

f/2:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/bravahelen.htm (a little motion
blur)
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/02David.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/03RachelDavid.htm

f/2.8:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/harpolean.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/quartet.htm

So why did I eventually sell my 85/2 Nikkor?  I had the old
chrome-on-brass mount, which was very heavy. Too heavy to carry around
unless I knew for sure I'd need it.  Also, after shooting it head-to-head
with a 90/2 pre-asph Summicron, I found that the 'Cron is a bit better in
the center at most stops, and decidedly better at the edges.  And the
bokeh is much smoother.

Since you have the 90 'Cron, you probably wouldn't find the Nikkor any
better.  Then again, you can get a 105/2.5 that fits on a Nikon SLR, which
you can't do with the 90 Summicron.

Hope this is useful.
--Peter


B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Damn! That raises a really interesting question concerning nostalgia v.
> reality. I remember the classic Nikon 105 2.5 as an absolute killer of a
> portrait lens, a lens so outstanding I have been tempted over the years
> to buy one of the old silver barrel ones. Does anyone know what tests of
> the lens might suggest? Is it as good as I remember it - or was it just
> outstanding in its day, which happened to be my late teens and 20s, a
> period in which pretty much everything was outstanding. :-)