I just picked up a mint condition Nikkor 105/2.5 on fleabay last week for $100. It is the P-C Gauss type design, c. 1976 (similar to the later ai and ai-s optics) but non-ai. It will replace the ai-s version of the same lens that I have been using for the last quarter century which has developed some problems. Sadly, I can't test it right now because it will not mount on my FM2n or FE2 and I will have to wait for it return from an AI conversion.
The Gauss type 105mm, and even the older Sonnar design of the same focal length are outstanding examples of what a great lens should be. Compact, light, extremely well built, with optical quality that will likely satisfy the most ardent purist. I have nothing but good things to say about this lens based on my long history with it. If you have the opportunity to pick up a used one at a reasonable price I recommend you go for it. I'm sure the 100/2 T* is an optically superior lens, but if you are like me and live in a reality where budgets (and wives) exist, the Nikkor will not dissappoint.
Therein lies the great question (that many a spouse wants answered).
Yes, you can spend that large increment in $$$$ to get that last Nth percentile in performance (God knows many of use have and still do), but that difference in resolution is often only viewable on screen at 100% vs. in real-life prints with any differences in color, contrast, etc between A and B often closed in PS in ~5 minutes.
If a client/customer loves your prints taken with a $00 lens, will they see (vs our own inner lens connoisseur) and pay for any marginal utility within the same prints taken with a $000 lens?
If so, buy the lens but do so with open eyes as no lens is perfect, no matter who makes it and the platitudes (typically excessive) they receive on web forums from owners.
If not, use the saved $$ for other unique lenses that do your style and IQ more justice for the $$. There are a LOT of modest $$ lens out there that compare VERY, VERY (did I say VERY?) favorably to their much costlier peers.
Note: On the 90/2AA (have owned twice); while it takes a bit of shopping (and staying away from the $$ silliness on Ebay), both of mine were acquired for LESS or the same $$ as a new ZE 100/2. Just as fast, just as sharp, far better CA control but at cost of a tad harsher bokeh and of course macro ability (barring tubes). Replaced the last 90AA/R with a CV 90/3.5APO.
Anyway, just one shooter's perspective. Good luck.
..... panos.v wrote:
If you have the money why not get it?
Because there's beauty in the economy of "just enough", whether it's a lens or anything else. The 105 mm f/2.5 Nikkor is much smaller and lighter, just as well made (unlike any autofocus lens), and can provide very attractive pictures. Unless you have a good reason to prefer the Zeiss (large aperture performance or close subjects), I don't see the point in spending the money on it.
Specularist wrote:
Because there's beauty in the economy of "just enough", whether it's a lens or anything else. The 105 mm f/2.5 Nikkor is much smaller and lighter, just as well made (unlike any autofocus lens), and can provide very attractive pictures. Unless you have a good reason to prefer the Zeiss (large aperture performance or close subjects), I don't see the point in spending the money on it.
The economy of just enough though is very subjective. Your economy is vastly different to that of a farmer in Vietnam, where "just enough" is not owning a camera at all. If the OP (or whoever) has the disposable income to spend on it, I say again, why not. Especially if this is something you use all the time!
Makten wrote:
You have no idea of what you are talking about, so why even try? Bragging is the worst shit I know.
Just because the 105/2.5 is one of the greatest, it doesn't mean it suits everybody. I don't know about you, but my style gets influenced by the lenses I use. So when switching from the Nikkor to the Makro-Planar, I also changed style, to something that I like better.
If you wants "character" in a lens the older the lens, generally speaking, the better, as someone who owns some a Leica you should know that. I don't know about you but my style is mine, not something that changes with a lens, especially not between 2 lenses of the same FL.
Conner999 wrote:
Yes, you can spend that large increment in $$$$ to get that last Nth percentile in performance (God knows many of use have and still do), but that difference in resolution is often only viewable on screen at 100% vs. in real-life prints with any differences in color, contrast, etc between A and B often closed in PS in ~5 minutes.
I strongly disagree. Before I got my Zeiss lenses, I could spend half an hour on just one single picture, trying to get the colors the way I wanted. Not so any more. I used to crank everything up, using the "vivid" color profile in ACR. Now I use "camera neutral" and I'm so much happier with that. It's just right from the beginning. I might as well crank it sometimes, but I don't feel that I "have to" anymore.
Yes, the differences are subtle. But not even close to neglible. Resolution doesn't interest me at all. I'm after the "Zeiss look", which can be seen even in small websized pictures. If anything, you'll miss it if you only look at 100%.
Now, have a look at the rocks on the little cape here. You won't get that with the Nikkor. It'll be close, but no cigar.
phatnev wrote:
If you wants "character" in a lens the older the lens, generally speaking, the better, as someone who owns some a Leica you should know that. I don't know about you but my style is mine, not something that changes with a lens, especially not between 2 lenses of the same FL.
Yeah, if "character" is the same as "optical flaws", I agree. It can be really nice using a single or non coated lens.
My style doesn't really change with the lenses. I just feel more or less comfortable with their performance, which makes me use them in different ways. The Nikkor 105 is fantastic, but the Zeiss suits me better.
Until I can produce something that rivals this:
......
I'll be just fine with my 105mm 2.5(the lens that was shot with)
The greatness of that photo has nothing with the lens to do. It's all about the girl, and her eyes. I don't shoot stuff like that. If I did, the Nikkor would probably be the better choice since it's more forgiving with skin tones and so on.
Wow. Humans capacity to get worked up because another human would prefer a more expensive tool than they can justify spending money on or afford is mind boggling.
------------------
No one seems to have mentioned the vastly different look the ZF100 produces compared to almost any other lens of similar focal length. Their is some 'extreme uniqueness' in the zones that are transitional between in focus and OOF. Double walled hallucinatory 3D goodness.
Jammy - one can say the same about folks who get 'worked up' because someone doesn't see the merit in paying $$$$$ for a lens they love vs a comparable for $$. I owned the ZF100, 35/2 twice and the 50/2 ZF. All were nice, but neither macro 'did it' for me vs comparable lenses I had.
Not all costly lens are what they are built up to be to all people and neither are all bargain lenses a 'bargain' to everyone else. You may think my M645 80/1.9 is not bargain or you may also have thought my Leica 180/2 APO was over-priced. Such is life. Don't see anyone getting 'worked up' YET (though it sadly does happen more times than not around here, so maybe I'm just getting desensitized to it); just offering differing opinions. If the thread goes long enough, all bets are off...
I've seen that 'reach out and touch it' 3D in many lenses - some more spendy than your typical ZF/ZE lens and others far cheaper. It does happen more regularly with Zeiss glass, but it's not something unique to Zeiss.
OP wisely asked for input on spending an incremental roughly (US pricing) $1500++ not incl. VAT moving from one lens he loves to another he has no experience with. Given the $$/Euro increment, asking for input and getting VARYING input may help alleviate any buyers remorse. He's getting those opinions.
------
Matken - we'll agree to disagree, but not on all of your points. A lot of folks love the 'Zeiss look' straight out of camera. Hell, it's almost become a cult around here over the last couple of years. Personally, it's not a preference of mine - not for all shots in any regard.
But if that look is what you're after out of camera, only Zeiss glass will give it to you. I guess, in short, if the 100/2 works you and is worth the $$ you spent, excellent. My not seeing the value for me vs comparable lenses doesn't make your opinion any less valid.
Conner999 wrote:
Jammy - one can say the same about folks who feel that because someone doesn't see the merit in paying $$$$$ for a lens they love vs another for a comparable $$.
When it comes to hobby-based photography one should not underestimate the impact "dream-lenses" have on the quality/enjoyability of the hobby either - optical qualities nonwithstanding. If a lens-purchase makes you go out and shoot and experiment more, it's probably worth it.
phatnev wrote:
The greatness of any photo has nothing to do with the lens.
I'd have to disagree. The lens does quite often play a part in a good image. In that particular shot, I would say the lens was a minor contributor to the overall impact.
Gary Clennan wrote:
I'd have to disagree. The lens does quite often play a part in a good image. In that particular shot, I would say the lens was a minor contributor to the overall impact.
Touché, the lens plays a part, albeit minor most times, but you can make a great photo with any lens.
phatnev wrote:
Touché, the lens plays a part, albeit minor most times, but you can make a great photo with any lens.
Yup, but if you like me want the best IQ, it makes sense to get the best lens for your purposes instead of listening to what others think about your gear. You can make a great photo with a cellphone camera, but you'll have to limit your photography to what the camera can do.
it is hobby same as profession for most of us. if it makes my hobby/job more enjoyable, it self is enough to justify any price difference.
Joy makes better pics, more time spend in the hobby, etc. For many of us gear is as important as relation between jockey and his race horse. I can shoot many of my best pics with P&S camera and post process it later, but the fact is i would never have gotten them if i would not be motivated and having fun in the process.
example. i have got second D700 with 24G which sits in the car whole day. I did it only for purpose to have it always with me, to remove the need of carrying bags, preparing and repacking when going to job, etc. It sure makes no other sense then joy and make my life more pretty, simple, enjoyable. You would say, for that purpose 20 f3.5 with D5000 would make more sense, be more price effective, etc etc. But, i just dont care. I would not enjoy it as much and it would result in that i would not use it as much and sure would not stop on road side after long wedding, only to watch some construction workers in evening light.
besides, i can buy tens of D700s for price other are spending for car or their hobby. Even such innocent ones as being it flying or mountain bikes or house equipment. I got one car which is enjoyable for lifetime and have other hobbies then buying latest dramatic plastics from audi and similar. Nobody can call me nose up because i spend (HORRIBLE) 2000eur for something i enjoy most.
I have both the Contax C/Y mount Zeiss Planar 100/2 and a vintage Nikor 105/2.5. I've taken many nice pictures with both, and have kept two entire systems just to use those lenses. If I had to choose only one though it would not even be close: the Zeiss.
The Nikon lens might be just as sharp, but I don't think so. It's almost falsely sharp. I read somewhere that the Nikon is loved by pros who shoot body-builders. That's easy for me to believe. It has that type of sharpness.
Back in the days of the Contax forum, when the C/Y system was still a live beast, we asked one of the German Zeiss engineers who was the ambassador to our forum which of the C/Y lenses Zeiss thoght the sharpest. It said it was close between the 50mm and 100mm Planers, but it was the 100. For various reasons I don't understand the layout of the Planer makes for very accurate lenses.
Many people back then noted that the 100/2 was a nicer lens than the 100 Macro. A lot of people still bought the Macro for it's two-in-one capability, but the 100 was pretty much the champion of crispness and favorite of most for portraits. (I think the 100 Macro was a 2.5 or 2.8?).. And of course the bokah at 2.0.
Also, the greatness of the 100/2 was more important on a manual focused camera like the Contax's it fit on.
In favor of the Nikon: it's about 1/2 the volume and weight of the Zeiss. It's 90% of the performance for 25% of the price. But the price for 100/2's among all the C/Y lenses has held up the best because it's just an almost perfect lens of the type.
It is unfortunate that Zeiss ZM isn't the equal of the C/Y, but again, all other things being equal bigger is better in lens quality (in my personal experience, I'm sure some engineer can explain why a micro-camera is actually better... (IE: the bigger barrel size of CY over Leica mount).
It's a tragedy that Kyocera gave up and didn't continue with the Autofocus Contax line, which used a medium format sized barrel. But then, of course, bigger glass costs more, too. So maybe the tradeoff just wasn't worth it.
And as awesome as the 100/2 was I never did get to even look through the 200/2, or the equally rare 85/1.2, both of which are above the pinacle of rareness.
As much as I like the 105mm f/2.5 (this is the lens that caused me to switch from Canon to Nikon in the late '70's.), I find the current 105mm f/2.8 VR lens to be just as good as a portrait lens and more versatile.
However, the best Nikkor 105mm portrait lens, and one that I think is every bit the equal of the Zeiss 100mm f/2 in color, resolution, contrast, and 3D effect, is the Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC lens.
