Jump to content

105mm f:1.8 Nikkor


Golem
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hadn't used this for years but hadda

dust it off for an upcoming job. And

it did need a minor fix to latch into

my newer gear. Last time I used it I

was shooting film. So, it does pay to

check your gear before you pack up !

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooooo .....

Since this will be the first time using this

with the aid of IBIS, and since it's a lot

bulkier and heavier than the its f:2.5 little

brother, it seemed I should check out what

IBIS can do with it.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Acoarst you can't see much by pixel peeping

a low rez jpeg, so here's an equally low rez

jpeg, but of a tighter crop:

 

 

Now, despite my inviting you to pixel peep,

this is a practical test. I de-mothballed this

lens for some work that I expect will require

marginal handheld shutter speeds, marginal

even with IBIS, and acoarst the usual near

wide open stops. IOW the test is handheld

at 1/30 at about f:2.5 and ISO 1600.

 

I really like the imagery. It's way more than

clean enuf for the purpose, but rendered as

an "image" rather than a "crystal window on

reality". IOW not your "ISO 50 on a tripod"

style, but as a "documentary" illustration, to

me it's near perfect. BTW, it's cropped down

to approximately APSC and has almost zero

post applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] but rendered as

an "image" rather than a "crystal window on

reality".

 

 

Possibly the best wording of why I like using legacy glass more than the newest Asph-something lenses (most Fuji glass excluded, they know their lenses...). And, btw, even the best definition of the difference between film-based (or properly, IMO, post-processed digital) and digital images.

 

BTW, a lifetime ago I was offered the 105/1.8 at a second-hand shop for very little more than the 85/2. Being an 85 junkie I chose that one (great lens anyway), but I'm still kicking myself, if not for anything else for the resale value :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still wondering whether to rely on the 105/1.8

when I can get functionally the same result

from my 85/2.0 which is much easier to hold

that it might produce better results handheld.

 

These are the sort of difference in results that

defies objective testing regimes. The human

element, yada yada etc etc ....

 

Basically, the 85/2.0 is *why* the 105/1.8 got

mothballed so very long ago. The upcoming

work is in Manhattan, so traveling light is no

small thing [to coin a cool phrase] !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some new-to-me good news on working conditions indicates

I can easily use somewhat shorter lenses, and possibly a bit

lower ISO. Here's a version from an 85/2.0 Nikkor at about

f/2.5, still handheld [1/20 sec this time]:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

.... and for the pixel peepers:

 

 

Since the 800 ISO are distinctly crunchier than the 1600 it's

good to know that I could go back to the 1600 or maybe 1250

and shoot the job at comfortable shutter speeds or more DOF.

Life is good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • 6 months later...

Hadn't used this for years but hadda

dust it off for an upcoming job. And

it did need a minor fix to latch into

my newer gear. Last time I used it I

was shooting film. So, it does pay to

check your gear before you pack up !

 

attachicon.gifNikkor 105mm ff1`8 0283.jpg

Hi Golem,

 

since my last post I've sold both the 82/2 and the 105/2.5, and picked up the 105/1.8 :)

 

I used it on a portrait shoot last week, and loved the results, but got some bad-ish flare. Do you happen to know where I can get a lens shade like yours? It looks better than anything I've seen on the bay...

 

cheers

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Hi Pieter, Not yet. I've thought about that, to use a tripod. But I've no time to try that yet. I'll try it this weekend and let you know.  Thanks!
    • Did you try manually focussing at 135mm, camera on tripod / solid ground, delayed release? If you can get sharp pictures that way, at least you know the optics are fine.
    • I don't know how those cameras would fare as aviation cameras - either of them are far beyond my scope of purchase - but people have been taking pictures of planes and other man-made flying objects well, as long as they have been around.  Unless the aircraft is flying straight at you or flying perpendicularly away from you, the AF lagging behind the shutter should not be an issue and in almost all cases you would be shooting at infinity so internal lens movements to acquire focus should be at a minimum.  If you are expecting to crop a lot, I guess a camera with higher resolution would be better for you but that also depends on what you are going to do with the image.  If you are going to be printing large mural sized prints, higher resolution image would be better but if you are going to print at or below 11x17 or not print at all, even a cropped image from my A7II will be good enough on any consumer grade monitors on the market.  I have seen images printed from the first generation Olympus OM-D E-M5 (16MP) at 11x17 and they were excellent.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...