Im wondering if any of you have had experience of both and what are your recommendations.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002

Answers

I've no experience with the 90 2.8, but out of the 7 Nikkors, 2 Summicrons & 1 Mamiya 110 2.8 lenses that I own, the 105mm Nikkor is tha last one I'd get rid of. I love it.

-- Dave Carlisle (dave_carlisle@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

Yossi:

I haven't used the latest elmarit. I have a pristine version of the thin elmarit. It is a very good lens if you don't shoot into the sun. I have been using one version or another of the 105 f/2.5 for decades. I consider it to be the best 35 mm format lens that I have used. I've always wondered why.

I have never run a test before reading all of the tests posted here. So I ran one. Without going into details I took photos of complex subjects [lots of leaves and flowers] with several of the cameras that I own. I found that my focus accuracy was best with the Nikon FE2 and worst with a Hasselblad. Leica was in between. My focus with the FE2 was better than auto-focus with a newer Nikon.

Still, the most interesting compositions of the same subject were from a Mamiya C330, as usual. So MTF charts begone. I think this is a personal thing.

Art

-- Art (ÅKarr90975@aol.com), May 03, 2002.

I have both, use both and will not concede superiority for one over the other. The optics not withstanding, I believe that the primary difference is the old SLR vs. rangefinder argument. I think all of the perceived advantages of a rangefinder start to shift towards the SLR after the 50mm focal length. The image pops into focus, the framing is easier and the visualization of selective focus works better with the SLR. With all of that said, I am using my 90mm lens more than in the past, and after a couple of rolls of film, it becomes pretty easy. The minute I pick up my Nikon and view with the 105mm lens though, I remember why the Elmarit doesn't represent as high a percentage of pictures on the Leica as the 105 does with the SLR. To be fair, I shoot more 35mm shots with the M6, than I do with my 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor, not due to the optics, but because of the ease of use of the RF camera for this focal length. These are handling considerations, and have nothing to do with the on-film rendition.

The main performance difference I see from the 90mm and 105mm is the rendition of the out of focus area, especially the area that has highlights. On the first link, you can see two shots of a similar subject both shot at f/4.0. The quality of the subject is pretty close, but if you look at the highlights in the blurred area, the Elmarit keeps everything smooth and round, while the Nikkor has a more geometric shape. Important? I don't know. BTW... this was not a test, but something I saw when loading a couple of hundred Nikkor and Elmarit shots onto my hard drive. I just picked two similar images (made by chance) to show this repetitious effect.

The rest of the links are just some examples of both lenses used at the same event. Of course, the limitations of the computer image comes into play, but I wouldn't think either lens would disappoint. I will always have both. out of focus rendition of highlights , 90mm Elmarit M , 90mm Elmarit M ,90mm Elmarit M , 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor , 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor , 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 03, 2002.

thx Al...appreciate.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

I have the Elmarit in M and R mounts (optically identical)and have owned the last AIS version of the 105/2.5 Nikkor. From f/5.6 and in the over 10ft range I would not be able to pick a clear winner. In the close range and from f/4 and wider, the Elmarit has greater contrast, corner sharpness and flares less.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 03, 2002.

Yossi:

You see; I don't disagree with Jay or Ål. What they say is true. I just judge the lenses by the photographs that I get. I get better ones with the Nikon lens. That was my point and why I defined it as a personal choice.

I lied when I said that I have never run a test before. Back in the 70's, I ran a test. I read that the lenses on the TLR Mamiya were flare prone. So, I took a Hasselblad with a 50, 150, 80 and a Mamiya C330 with a 65, 135, 80 and shot the sun rising over a church steeple. The article was correct. A moron could see the difference. What did I do? I didn't shoot photos of the sun rising over steeples with the Mamiya. ;<)

I still think it has more to do with the photographer that the equipment. But hey, that is just me.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 03, 2002.

105/2.5 is soft and of less contrast at apertures greater than f4.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

I had a old non-AI 105 Nikkor and it was a great lens, but I never managed to capture anything like this:

Current V. 90 Elmarit, T400CN

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

I use both and they are both excellent lenses. 105/2.5 has 2 version, the later version with wider rear element and closer focusing is supposed to be the better of the two. Latest 90/2.8 is IMO not as nice ergonomically as some of the earlier versions but colour and results wise best.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), May 04, 2002.

The Modern Photography test of Oct 1971 gave the 105mm f2.5 Nikon-F mount lens serial #418477 all excellent ratings; at both center and edge; from wide open @F2.5 to all the way stopped down @F32...This was for the "newer" Gauss/Xenotar type lens that focused even closer to 39 inches/1 meter...The old version was a Sonnar type that only focused to 48 inches..The test said that the newer lens was better than the old version only when used closer than 10 ft...The Modern test of 1971 was shot at the 1:48 ratio; ie the test targets were about 5 meters away..; around 16 to 17 feet away.

The "newer" 105mm I bought around 1977; it was damn sharp; it put my old Vivitar 135mm F2.8 in the unused box...Until the 105mm got stolen....Today I got another F mount Ai 105mm off of ebay; it is like my old one!; ie sharp....Also I have a Nikon 105mm F2.5 LTM M39 lens for my Zorki's and Leica...It is an early 1950's model and is very good...It even uses the same 52mm 105mm lens hood that was not stolen twenty five years ago; and I still had in my junk box! The Old Nikkors have a good hard reflective coating; which doesnt have the Leitz micro cracking/haze problems...These old LTM Nikkors are real heavy; because some types are all brass... ART; I agree with you about the Mamiya C 6x6 series lenses flaring a bit; real world taking photographs with my 105mm and 180mm Mamiya C3 lenses dont have the snap I had wished for....kelly

"The Fifth Tale concerns the AI Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens"

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 05, 2002.