You motivated me to take out my Nikkor P 105/2.5... kind of forgot about her.
A stunning lens, but I've been a little caught up on finding a replacement for my Zeiss MP 100/2 to give the 105/2.5 much consideration. Not quite the perfect fit for some things, but the image "feel" is unmatched.
Here are some images I took yesterday while out walking the dog...
All with the D810 and Nikkor-P 105mm 1:2.5
You motivated me to take out my Nikkor P 105/2.5... kind of forgot about her.
A stunning lens, but I've been a little caught up on finding a replacement for my Zeiss MP 100/2 to give the 105/2.5 much consideration. Not quite the perfect fit for some things, but the image "feel" is unmatched.
Here are some images I took yesterday while out walking the dog...
All with the D810 and Nikkor-P 105mm 1:2.5
Non-AI on the FTZ adapter? Oh yes we can make that work! I have tried early variants of the 10.5cm 2.5P and a 13.5cm 3.5Q and they both work. Just tried an early 5cm f2 and that doesn't, the rear lip is just too deep. I believe the 10.5cm is one that even the Df doesn't accomodate.
pbraymond wrote:
Doug, thanks for the comparison. I have to admit to not looking through all the images, I kinda got lazy after a few. I take it you're sticking to 28mm then for better optical performance?
Yes, I felt the 28s were sharper but I don't have a 28 yet (those were Jack's). I will probably get one this summer. I have read other opinions that these older Nikon 24s just weren't that sharp (you can decide for yourself). However, I notice on my Sony 24-105, I shoot 24 more than 28. I guess when you need a 24, you need a 24 not a 28. But maybe constraining oneself to a 28 would end up in sharper images?
Quite amazing that these beasts from three quarters of a century ago are still flying. In the fog of the war I am sure no one was even thinking 75 years out in the future.
Accidentally (yeah really) getting hold of a 50-300 4.5. Not that I am going to turn into Rafael and come back with gorgeous event pics. Did a bid thinking it was going to be too low, and well it wasn't.
Pretty sure I used a 105 NAI on the Df but I’ll admit I could be wrong. 50/2 H as well but could be other variants? Haven’t hit a snag yet, other than the FTZ is unnecessarily large for a lot of them. Wish they’d fix non CPU data with dumb adapters.
saph wrote:
Non-AI on the FTZ adapter? Oh yes we can make that work! I have tried early variants of the 10.5cm 2.5P and a 13.5cm 3.5Q and they both work. Just tried an early 5cm f2 and that doesn't, the rear lip is just too deep. I believe the 10.5cm is one that even the Df doesn't accomodate.
saph wrote:
Non-AI on the FTZ adapter? Oh yes we can make that work! I have tried early variants of the 10.5cm 2.5P and a 13.5cm 3.5Q and they both work. Just tried an early 5cm f2 and that doesn't, the rear lip is just too deep. I believe the 10.5cm is one that even the Df doesn't accomodate.
Now I am impressed.
Yours must be the 9 blade, my 5cm 2.0 S fits the FTZ fine.
