p.1 #1 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
I was cleaning out my storage and discovered i have a new 105mm 2.5 ais in the box which I never used.
Thought I would sell it. So I went to ebay to see the prices. And holy crap! 1k for a new one if you can find one and that's out of Japan.
Think I will just hold on to it. But now im tempted to use it.
p.1 #4 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
I thought the f1.8 version is somewhat rare. My f2.5 was bought off of Reddit which seems like came from ebay Japan in "top mint" condition, whatever that means, but it has a little certificate/receipt by a Japanese shop (Reddit guy included that) and I paid $200 for it. I feel that's an okay price. That was last year pre-tariff. Now similar "top mint" lenses are 300 in my cursory look.
Didn't come across any BNIB for $1k. Though, the mint condition Japanese lens is as good as new.
p.1 #5 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
Well, that's a premium price for a never used lens.
Mint used copies are a LOT cheaper. I bought mine in ostensibly unused condition (but no box and sold as used) for about $400 on ebay from Japan, sold it here for that much, and then rebought it from the buyer for the same price yet again...don't recommend that path
At least the magnets in the hood still work unlike some copies. In general it's an overpriced lens thanks to it taking one of the most seen portraits of the 20th century.
p.1 #6 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
Would you consider it overpriced at $200 as well?
RoamingScott wrote:
Well, that's a premium price for a never used lens.
Mint used copies are a LOT cheaper. I bought mine in ostensibly unused condition (but no box and sold as used) for about $400 on ebay from Japan, sold it here for that much, and then rebought it from the buyer for the same price yet again...don't recommend that path
At least the magnets in the hood still work unlike some copies. In general it's an overpriced lens thanks to it taking one of the most seen portraits of the 20th century.
p.1 #7 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
newyork wrote:
Would you consider it overpriced at $200 as well?
It's a lens that performs best on a film camera IMO, so the cost/benefit kinda hinges on what you're using it for. I don't really enjoy it on Z, love it on film.
p.1 #8 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
I see. Thank you.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's a lens that performs best on a film camera IMO, so the cost/benefit kinda hinges on what you're using it for. I don't really enjoy it on Z, love it on film.
p.1 #9 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
That’s an incredible thing to stumble across a brand new 105mm 2.5 AIS in the box is about as good as it gets. The Japan prices don’t surprise me at all anything NOS over there always seems to command a premium, especially with a lens that iconic.
p.1 #11 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
While I love my 105/2.5 AiS, I would never pay the premium for a NIB copy (unless it was a garage-sale find for pocket money), but that is a sweet find! If you are not aware, serial numbers 1043xxx and above are SIC coated, and command a large premium, so if your copy is in that range you REALLY have a unicorn.
I agree with RoamingScott: This was a VERY common lens, and if you are patient you can find an essentially as-new copy for sub $400. If you prefer one of the older Ai versions (with the longer focus-throw, but lacking the somewhat janky built-in hood), mint prices can drop to sub $200. I bought my AiS copy on eBay for $165 in 2021 and it is as close to unused as I could ask, including the perfect/smooth focus stiffness of a new lens. Since then, prices have gone up a bit due to the advent of the Zf and FTZ adapter.
Jorge, what are the F3 screens you have? Some of the more exotic ones (e.g. G and H series) are of interest to me, and I've always wanted to try the M screen with my DW-4 chimney finder.
p.1 #12 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
I had it up for sale but the temptation was too much. I finally shot it on an M11. Yea. go figure, Next will be on the ZF. Here are some thoughts on the lens
p.1 #15 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
I owned the AI version for a few decades, phenomenal lens and was my favourite but focusing on a DLSR with a virtually clear focus screen was a pain. I replaced it with the 105 f1.4E and sold off the AI version. That AI version was very very close to the newer f1.4E for sharpness and performed very well on digital so it still has value for current MILC bodies.
p.1 #16 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
Sauseschritt wrote:
...
I paid 300€ for my 105/1.8 ... paying $1000 for the f/2.5 sounds insane to my ears.
And yes my 105/1.8 is not in perfect condition. It works fine though.
I had no idea that there are lenses that "work best on film". I have absolutely no idea what thats supposed to mean either.
In simple terms, film does not have the resolution of high mp cameras. So, the fine details won't show up on film like they would on a 60mp sensor. Thus showing a lenses inability to render really fine detail.
p.1 #17 · Have you seen the price of a new 105mm 2.5 ais?
Film can reach about 5 Gigapixel resolution on small format, though thats ISO 3 special film used for non-photographic applications. And there was no problem back then to produce optics that could fully exploit this resolution. For example there was a system called microfiche that was used in libraries.
Modern ISO 50 black and white film can also reach very high resolutions, easily 50 Megapixel equivalent. The error that people make is that often the equipment used to scan film cannot produce these resolutions. That doesnt mean the film doesnt offer it.
Many optics of the past are searched for by modern photographers for their exceptional sharpness. For example the Nikkor AF 55mm f2.8 micro, which is optically equivalent to its predecessor AI-S 55mm f2.8 micro.
I have yet to see anyone who owns the 105mm f2.5 on digital cameras complain about a lack of sharpness of that optic, either.
Anyone who knows even a little bit about optics wouldnt understand this whole claim anyway. It makes no sense. The laws of optics havent changed a bit, and have all been found during the 19. century already. The ways to produce precise optics have also already been solved, in fact they have been solved even before that, otherwise people wouldnt have had telescopes.
All that got better is some more optical materials have been found, and non-spherical lenses have become cheaper to produce. Otherwise optics stayed the same.
Another fundamental problem that people dont understand that in order to double the resolution, you need four times the pixel.
Megapixel is used to measure the resolution of sensors simply because you can get to such impressive numbers. Not because it actually makes much sense as a measurement for resolution. You can literally make people fight over the question if a sensor has 20 or 24 Megapixel resolution. Which is a tiny difference.
Thus, the idea that we had the resolutions we have in digital cameras only just now is just absurd.
