In article <32dafd5b.3535003@news.one.net>, scarleton@cintech-cti.com says...
>On 11 Jan 1997 22:33:32 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) wrote:
> >In article <6OfzNh1-v4B@j-lilien.amtrash.comlink.de>,
> >j.lilienborn@AMTRASH.comlink.de says...
> >>scarleton@cintech-cti.com (Sam Carleton) writes:

> >>> ..., go looking for the 105/2.5
> >>> that is full metal, no rubber focusing ring. There are two of this
> >>> model, one with a large last element and one with a small last element.
> >>> It is the one with the large final element that is the best 105/2.5
> >>> Nikon ever made. ...

> >>ist the current AI-S 105/2.5 still the same optical design?

> >I think it is - the current version is certainly as good as any Nikkor
> >105mm at normal distances (though it is not as sharp as the 105M AIS
> >when used under 5' or so at wide apertures).

>Which lens are you talking about? the "isnt the current" was asking if the
>last MF 105/2.5 was the same design as the second 105/2.5 MF (with a metal >barrel). I don't think it is, do you?

I am not sure, but I think it is... The original silver-front 105 had
a small rear element. I seem to remember that this was changed to the
large rear element version when the front became black (still non-AI,
non-rubber focus-ring). I think the lens has not changed optically
since, except for multicoating (IC) just before the AI version appeared.
I prefer the performance of the newer type, but the current type appeared
very early, as I recall.
Hope This Helps