New 85 or old 105/2.5?

I too am looking to shed some weight (in the camera department, although personally not a bad idea either). Just got a 180/2.8 to try as a possible replacement for my 80-200 AF-D. Find I use the zoom at the long end most of the time.

So the next question is do I keep my 105/2.5 Ais (always loved that focal length) or look for an 85? I like having one manual camera and two lenses (45 and 105) and one auto (F100) with 17-35 and 80-200. but if the 180 proves to be as good as people say I'll save the weight, gain some quality, but lose AF and matrix metering in the 50-135 range.
Any thoughts on quality between the classic 105/2.5 and the new 85/1.8?
Many thanks!
Kirk Fisher

Kirk Fisher said:

I too am looking to shed some weight (in the camera department,
although personally not a bad idea either). Just got a 180/2.8 to
try as a possible replacement for my 80-200 AF-D. Find I use the
zoom at the long end most of the time.
So the next question is do I keep my 105/2.5 Ais (always loved that
focal length) or look for an 85? I like having one manual camera
and two lenses (45 and 105) and one auto (F100) with 17-35 and
80-200. but if the 180 proves to be as good as people say I'll save
the weight, gain some quality, but lose AF and matrix metering in
the 50-135 range.
Any thoughts on quality between the classic 105/2.5 and the new
85/1.8?

Click to expand...

The 105mm is a better lens (and one of my all time favorites), though the 85mm is no slouch. But not only do you lose matrix and AF, you lose some of the flash sophistication. Unfortunately, you can't add a chip to the 105mm to solve all that, as Nikon never made an f/2.5 AF lens. Tough call, but I don't use my 105mm any more.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Hello Kirk Fisher,

Nothing solves problems like throwing money at them !

Buy the 105 2.8 Micro Nikon AF D....STUNNING

I have both a MF 105 2.5 AIS and the AF 85 1.8, both are great lenses. As you might guess I use the 105 2.5 on my F3HP, I even use it sometimes on my F4s (in MF of course) which can use matrix metering with this lens. I mostlly use the 85 1.8 on my F4s and F5 and on my D1x. I mostly do portrait type work so I kept both lenses. I thought I would get a 105 2.8 AF lens both so far haven't gotten around to it or have had an urgent need for it. I also have the AF 180 2.8 also a great lens, I use it when I want a longer focal length for portraits when I don't want to take my 80-200 AF-S along.

Kirk Fisher said:

I too am looking to shed some weight (in the camera department,
although personally not a bad idea either). Just got a 180/2.8 to
try as a possible replacement for my 80-200 AF-D. Find I use the
zoom at the long end most of the time.
So the next question is do I keep my 105/2.5 Ais (always loved that
focal length) or look for an 85? I like having one manual camera
and two lenses (45 and 105) and one auto (F100) with 17-35 and
80-200. but if the 180 proves to be as good as people say I'll save
the weight, gain some quality, but lose AF and matrix metering in
the 50-135 range.
Any thoughts on quality between the classic 105/2.5 and the new
85/1.8?
Many thanks!
Kirk Fisher

Click to expand...

--
Tphoto

F3HP
F4s
F5
D1x
SB-24, SB-28, SB-80DX
AF-S 80-200, AF 180, AF 85 1.8, etc., etc.
Hasselblad 503cw, 50 CFi, 80 CFi, 120 CFi, 150 CFi
No money, no job

Based on your knowledge of the micro-chip system, what would happen if a 2.8 chip were installed in the 2.5 lens?
Would the lens overexpose by half a stop and could that not be compensated out?
It is a sweet lens it is a shame to give it up.

Of course Nikon could let us set min & max f-stop info directly into the software and we could use all of our old AIS lenses -- sure!

Thom Hogan said:

The 105mm is a better lens (and one of my all time favorites),
though the 85mm is no slouch. But not only do you lose matrix and
AF, you lose some of the flash sophistication. Unfortunately, you
can't add a chip to the 105mm to solve all that, as Nikon never
made an f/2.5 AF lens. Tough call, but I don't use my 105mm any
more.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Click to expand...

cool guys shoot with an expensive house and a cheap 75-150/4 E

Regards
Leifilund

Tphoto said:

Kirk Fisher said:

I too am looking to shed some weight (in the camera department,
although personally not a bad idea either). Just got a 180/2.8 to
try as a possible replacement for my 80-200 AF-D. Find I use the
zoom at the long end most of the time.
So the next question is do I keep my 105/2.5 Ais (always loved that
focal length) or look for an 85? I like having one manual camera
and two lenses (45 and 105) and one auto (F100) with 17-35 and
80-200. but if the 180 proves to be as good as people say I'll save
the weight, gain some quality, but lose AF and matrix metering in
the 50-135 range.
Any thoughts on quality between the classic 105/2.5 and the new
85/1.8?
Many thanks!
Kirk Fisher

Click to expand...

--
Tphoto

F3HP
F4s
F5
D1x
SB-24, SB-28, SB-80DX
AF-S 80-200, AF 180, AF 85 1.8, etc., etc.
Hasselblad 503cw, 50 CFi, 80 CFi, 120 CFi, 150 CFi
No money, no job

Click to expand...

rcwisler said:

Based on your knowledge of the micro-chip system, what would happen
if a 2.8 chip were installed in the 2.5 lens?

Click to expand...

It would work very well, except for using the sub command dial to set exposures for manual exposure. If you metered f8 on a hand held meter, and set f8 on the sub command dial, the camera would think you needed to stop down 3 stops, f2.8 to f8, and would stop your lens down 3 stops from f2.5, ending up at f7, 1/3 stop overexposed. So for manual exposure, you'd be better off setting apeture on the lens itself.

I think Rolland says he can't do it because he doesn't want to do it.

rcwisler said:

Would the lens overexpose by half a stop and could that not be
compensated out?

Click to expand...

No. Exposure readings are mostly relative. The camera assumes the lens is wide open, and determines how many stops it has to close down. The F numbers are just a convenience to us humans.

There will be a slight problem with matrix meeting, but not much. Matrix metering uses an absolute value for the light, based on f-stop, as one factor in computing exposure. If you know the amount of light hitting the metering sensors, and you know the apeture, you know the total light. Then you can play tricks, like if a large area at the top of the scene above a certain brightness threshold is the sky, meter from one of the darker sensors that's probably reading the subject.

This is not a big deal, since many lenses have significant "light loss", they lose much light from all the times light has to pass from air to glass or glass to air. Some lenses as much as 50% loss, so there can be a full stop error in the absolute light estimations.

rcwisler said:

It is a sweet lens it is a shame to give it up.

Click to expand...

Don't. I just used mine last week, manual mode, studio flash, and flash meter.

rcwisler said:

Of course Nikon could let us set min & max f-stop info directly
into the software and we could use all of our old AIS lenses --

Click to expand...

I'm working on that one from a different point of view. Duplicate the lens chip, allow the apeture to be set to anything desired (instead of just scamming chips from Nikon repair) and be able to have it connected to the camera at all times, deactivating itself when real chipped lenses are used.

Ciao!

Joe

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

It would work very well, except for using the sub command dial to
set exposures for manual exposure.

Click to expand...

That is what I thought. You could compensate easily by adjusting the EV on the camera, the ASA on the meter or just set the lens to the number on the hand meter or the sub command a little higher than the meter.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

No. Exposure readings are mostly relative. The F numbers are just a > convenience to us humans.

Click to expand...

To be hoest, I was thinking that this worked like the sub command above, but your "relative" explanation is clearly correct. Where does the max f-stop info come into play here? Which is to say is the stop-down pin linear in that the particular lens's full f-stop range is traversed linearly as the pin goes from full-in to full-out; or is it that a linear incrament in the position of the pin represents a single f-stop increase starting from wide open(full in).

in the latter case the signifigance of the max f-stop info would be to limit the electronics expectation that further travel would result in an increased f-stop. Do all Nikkor lenses have the same number of stops from wide-open to full down or is that variable -- i must go look at mine with that question in mind.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

many lenses have significant light loss

Click to expand...

Is the light loss not taken into account when they called it an f2.5 lens in the first place. But, I take yur point that metering in general is a + - 1 stop affair.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Duplicate the lens chip, allow the apeture to be set to anything desired

Click to expand...

Now this is a very good idea either for an on-camera fix or as a source of supply for lens modification. Is there any reverse engineering info available on this subject? Is the thing digital or do they do the D-to-A in the camera? Either way it seems simple (6 weeks work and 4 generations of prototype chips later----)

rcwisler said:

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

It would work very well, except for using the sub command dial to
set exposures for manual exposure.

Click to expand...

That is what I thought. You could compensate easily by adjusting
the EV on the camera,

Click to expand...

You wouldn't want to do that, the onboard meter will give you correct exposure (or at least as correct as a D100 gets) without adjustment. The F numbers shown in the finder will be 1/3 stop off, but you can live with that for DOF calcualtions.

rcwisler said:

the ASA on the meter

Click to expand...

Best way to go if you want to use the sub command dial

rcwisler said:

or just set the lens to
the number on the hand meter

Click to expand...

My preferred way of working.

rcwisler said:

or the sub command a little higher
than the meter.

rcwisler said:

No. Exposure readings are mostly relative. The F numbers are just a > convenience to us humans.

Click to expand...

To be hoest, I was thinking that this worked like the sub command
above, but your "relative" explanation is clearly correct. Where
does the max f-stop info come into play here? Which is to say is
the stop-down pin linear in that the particular lens's full f-stop
range is traversed linearly as the pin goes from full-in to
full-out; or is it that a linear incrament in the position of the
pin represents a single f-stop increase starting from wide
open(full in).

Click to expand...

The later, linear by stops. Although it's not "in and out" it's a rotery motion. No motion for wide open, maximum motion for fully stopped down.

rcwisler said:

in the latter case the signifigance of the max f-stop info would be
to limit the electronics expectation that further travel would
result in an increased f-stop. Do all Nikkor lenses have the same
number of stops from wide-open to full down or is that variable --

Click to expand...

No, it varies from 6 to 8 stops.

f1.4 Nikkors usually have 8 stops down to f16
f1.8 have 7-1/3 stops to f16 or 8-1/3 to f22
f2.0 have 7 stops to f16 or 8 to f22
f2.8 have 7 stops to f22 or 8 stops to f32
f4 have 6 stops to f16, 7 stops to f22, 8 stops to f32

Early camersa like the FA could tell (like the N80/D100) that they were at minimum aperture, they could read maximum paerture from a mechanical ridge, so they knew the range. AF cameras get min and max from the CPU, and either know the lens is at minimum aperture, or read the aperture set on the lens.

rcwisler said:

i must go look at mine with that question in mind.

rcwisler said:

many lenses have significant light loss

Click to expand...

Is the light loss not taken into account when they called it an
f2.5 lens in the first place.

Click to expand...

No. Apetures are purely numeric, otherwise DOF and diffraction couldn't be calculated. But some folks talk of T-stops or transmission factors to describe the amount of light that actually gets through. It's something measured in a thorough lens test, also.

rcwisler said:

But, I take yur point that metering
in general is a + - 1 stop affair.

rcwisler said:

Duplicate the lens chip, allow the apeture to be set to anything desired

Click to expand...

Now this is a very good idea either for an on-camera fix or as a
source of supply for lens modification. Is there any reverse
engineering info available on this subject?

Click to expand...

It's not really "availaible".

rcwisler said:

Is the thing digital
or do they do the D-to-A in the camera?

Click to expand...

Digital.

rcwisler said:

Either way it seems simple
(6 weeks work and 4 generations of prototype chips later----)

Click to expand...

You know, I think I've got less than that into it (if you figured it as 40 hour full time weeks) but it's spread out so much time its hard to calculate.

Ciao!

Joe