On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 09:38:02 -0500, "Ken Rosenbaum" <kenrosenbaum@accessNOSPAMtoledo..com> wrote:

>"Uli Schunemann" <ulrich.schuenemann@t-online.de> wrote in message

>news:deaf815b.0301010537.199ef824@posting.google.com...

>> I own a Nikkor 85mm/2.0 and I´m thinking of buying a 105mm-lens instead.

>> The 85mm/2.0 seems to lose contrast when there is much light available.

>> It´s excellent when there is not much light though.

>>

>> Will one of the different 105mm-lenses

>> perform better/worse/just as good as the 85/2.0 does?

>My personal experiences:

>I own the 85/2.0. I also use the 100/2.8 Series E and the 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor

>and recently acquired the 85/1.8AF.

>I like the 85/2 for head and shoulders shots. The contrast is very good. The

>sharpness seems excellent, perhaps losing a negligible bit wide open, but

>that is to be expected.

>Now, the 100/2.8 Series E is, in my opinion, just as good a lens. Sharpness

>and contract seems to equal the 85 in every respect.

>Regarding the 105/2.8 AIS, I can't see much difference in sharpness, but the

>contrast seems to have just a tad more snap. This is not any scientific

>observation, just my own feelings using the same film, settings and

>subjects. The difference, however, would not be enough to get me to dump the

>85/2 in favor of exclusive use of the 105/2.5 AIS.

>Now, I just got back my first couple rolls taken with the 85/1.8 AF lens. It

>appears to equal in every respect, in fact may even surpass, the 105/2.5

>AIS. The sharpness is remarkable, along with the wonderful contrast.

>By the way, if price is an issue, look hard at the inexpensive 100/2.8

>Series E. Its bokeh is truly smooth, on a par with the 85/1.8 AF. All,

>however, render out-of-focus highlights very well.

>I also have the 135/2.8 Series E lens for some portrait work. It is an

>underrated, well-made gem that equals in all respects my 135/2.8 AIS Nikkor.

>Also makes a great lens to shoot basketball. It's a puzzle to me why the 135

>length has fallen so much out of favor.

>I might add that I have never had a problem with the workmanship and quality

>of the Series E lenses. I no longer use my stuff on a photojournalism basis,

>so it stands up very well in hard amateur use and on the occasional paying

>job. I have the full set of the Series E classics and have only been the

>slightest bit disappointed in the apparent resolution of the 35mm and 28mm

>lenses, and then only the very slightest. All three zooms are very fine

>lenses.

>Why do I have so many of these portrait lenses? I am just a nutty collector

>and user who can't pass up a steal on a mint classic. These are all like

>brand new and came from eBay at incredible prices. Most folks find it hard

>to believe what they cost.

>Do I need them all? Of course not. But it sure is fun to have a choice when

>loading film into one of my favorite cameras.

>Happy New Year and happy shooting!

>Ken

I agree with all of what Ken says (with the exception that

I have seen too many poor samples of the E 28mm f2.8 to

recommend it...) - see www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html

for my Nikkor lens list (many evaluated). I remember when

the E-series lenses (and plastic-clad bodies, like the FG)

came out, and how much we all hated these

"cheap-looking/feeling" Nikon items - and now the

later-style E lenses and the FG, FA, etc. seem like models

of precision construction and feel (compared with much of

the current AF gear ;-). I suppose the current low-end AF

gear will look/feel great compared with what is offered

in 15 years or so (UGH! WHAT AN AWEFUL THOUGHT!!!! ;-).