# 40 year old glass- the 'Afghan Girl' lens



## Peeb (Feb 24, 2020)

Nikon 105mm f/2.5.  Picked it up on ebay for 80.00.  What do you think?

1.  Missie



Test shot- vintage lens by Peeb OK, on Flickr

2.  Riley



Shot 2- testing 40 year old lens by Peeb OK, on Flickr


----------



## zulu42 (Feb 24, 2020)

Those eyes!

Looks good. Real nice


----------



## Derrel (Feb 24, 2020)

The 105 mm f / 2.5 Ai-s was the very first ever brand-new Nikon lens I ever bought. It was in 1982, in my first full year of College. I paid $169.95. This lens uses Nikons close range correction  CRC system, and is quite possibly the best focusing manual focus telephoto ever made by Nikon. Even today this lens is useful on digital cameras, whether they be aps-c or full frame models.

At one point I sold a second copy I had bought of this lens to a TPF member. He drove down here from the Seattle area and we drove out to the Columbia Gorge National Scenic area, where he gave the lens a test drive on his Nikon D 7100. I would highly recommend this lens to anyone who needs a solid medium telephoto lens.

It looks like you are already putting the lens to good use. I think it will continue to grow on you.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 25, 2020)

I bought my copy of the venerable 105mm f2.5 AIS in 1978 and only sold it a few years ago replacing it with the 105mm f1.4 E. It really is a magical focal length that often gets overlooked.

The Gauss design over the Sonar in 1972 was the first major advancement and by the late 1970’s the NIC coatings were controlling flare and ghosting to the point of nonexistent. It’s deadly sharp and contrasty and if you come across a good copy there really is no downside to picking one up.


----------



## Jeff15 (Feb 25, 2020)

Good shots the lens appears to be working fine......


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 25, 2020)

Great lens. Super image definition, color saturation, it is a great portrait lens. I didn't use it much and a guy wanted it and had something for trade. My copy was pristine. 

Regrettably, I traded mine (Gauss version) for a well used but clean 35 1.4 AIS. The guy had 3 copies. This 35 is really hard to master, my most frustrating lens to date. I will pick the 105 2.5 ais up again at some point. Heck, I could probably sell the 35 1.4 and buy 3 copies. I just don't think to use that 105 focal length much.


----------



## Jeff G (Feb 25, 2020)

Excellent shots, ya done good!


----------



## RVT1K (Feb 25, 2020)

What I think is that picking up a most excellent lens for 80 bucks was a great score for you.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 25, 2020)

I used to use my 105 a lot for what we called mugshots, small headshots that we would run to illustrate newspaper stories, and I was always impressed with how beautifully the 105 / 2.5 did compared against the Nikon 85mm... it might not seem like much of a difference,but the additional length really gave a much better rendition of a person when photographed from close range.


----------



## Designer (Feb 25, 2020)

Peeb said:


> What do you think?


Superb color and depth.  Good price, too!  Well done!


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 25, 2020)

Back when this lens made its debut, 1000 ASA(ISO) was considered golf ball territory. If only that 40 year old lens knew it was sending photons to a sensor set to 28,800 ISO, LOL.

BTW, you may be able to set non-cpu lens ID's in your Z6, I can in my Nikon DSLR's. This would enable your EXIF to correctly display focal length and f-stop.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 25, 2020)

Good focal length for portraiture, with a fairly comprehensive set of focus distances which give you a tight headshot,a head-and-shoulders, a bust framing,a half-body framing, a 3/4 body framing, and a full-length framing,as well as three distances for groups  from three people to 25. The Marked Focus distances are designed to be used with a full-fame camera  obviously, and are from the old way of working in which you first set the focus distance and then posed your people. Used at f4 it gives a nice defocused background but also shows the environment somewhat.



2001, dx sensor, 2.7mp Nikon D1





2012, D3x. FF sensor at f/4





2014, D3x FF sensor  f/5


----------



## Derrel (Feb 25, 2020)

The idea of selecting a framing that corresponds with a specific focus distance is something many people are unfamiliar with. 6 feet, 2 meters, 6.5 feet  7 feet, 8 feet,10 feet, 3 meters... all of these distances were carefully arrived at. The Ai-s version has a built-in sliding lens hood; the Ai and earlier versions use a separate lens hood. The Ai-s version has a "lighter touch"focusing action than do earlier versions.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 26, 2020)

Derrel said:


> The idea of selecting a framing that corresponds with a specific focus distance is something many people are unfamiliar with. 6 feet, 2 meters, 6.5 feet  7 feet, 8 feet,10 feet, 3 meters... all of these distances were carefully arrived at. The Ai-s version has a built-in sliding lens hood; the Ai and earlier versions use a separate lens hood. The Ai-s version has a "lighter touch"focusing action than do earlier versions.


Memory is a odd duck, I will have to correct myself, I owned the AI version. It had a 170 degree focus rack, super useful for precise focusing, hands down my favourite lens of that era.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2020)

Pretty similar. The AI and the AI-S, except for the built-in lens shade, thr minimum aperture in orange, and the secondary aperture scale, and the number of degrees of turn in the focusing ring oh, and the lesser amount of pressure needed to move the focus ring ring in the AIS version.

The AIS lenses also had a linear diaphragm actuator mechanism. Many AI lenses when used on a modern camera, make a slight clunking noise when the diaphragm stops down--- AIS lenses sound and feel subtly different.


I have owned the Ai and the AIS versions and/or "pre-Ai" versions of several popular Nikon lenses. I don't think there is any real performance ( I mean Optical performance) difference between the AI and the AIS with the 105mm/2.5. The main difference that people will notice right away is that in the AIS series The Cosmetics were redesigned and in general the focusing ring turns much more easily and turnes in fewer degrees... on some lenses this is quite noticeable such as on the 135mm f/ 2.8 and on the 200 mm f/4.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2020)

All of this 105 / 2.5 talk is making me think about limbering up some of my remaining 1980s-2000's era manual focus Nikkor lenses this weekend. I still have a 24/2.8 ais, a 35/2 ais. A few 50's, a 55 micro 3.5, an 85/2 ais, a 105/2.5 ais, a 135/2.8 ais, a 135/3.5 ai, and 200/4 in ai and ais. I also have in Nice condition a 180mm f 2.8 ED Ai-s. And I also have a few zoom lenses.

Back when the Nikon D100 hit the market, there was a huge rush to sell off older gear and the market was flooded with many seldom-used manual focus lenses,often at ridiculously low prices. I bought the 200 mm lenses,both,for $60 each. I got the 135/2.8 ais for about $100 back in 2002. A couple of summers ago my local camera shop had the 135 / 3.5 in ai form, for $65.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2020)

The 105 /2.5  was one of the lenses that really solidified Nikon's fame. 105 mm is a really,really useful focal length. I have owned at least one 105 Nikkor since 1982... at one point I owned three.

If you look you can find the 105mm f/1.8 AI-S and of course there is the remarkable new 105mm AFS G f / 1.4 auto focus that JB Photography is going to loan me for a 10-year trial.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 27, 2020)

Derrel said:


> The 105 /2.5  was one of the lenses that really solidified Nikon's fame. 105 mm is a really,really useful focal length. I have owned at least one 105 Nikkor since 1982... at one point I owned three.
> 
> If you look you can find the 105mm f/1.8 AI-S and of course there is the remarkable new 105mm AFS G f / 1.4 auto focus that JB Photography is going to loan me for a 10-year trial.



Further digging, the AI versions had seven curved aperture blades whereas the AIS has seven straight aperture blades. It would be interesting to see if the bokeh was the same between the two.

As far as a long term loan of my F1.4E version, the saying of prying it from my cold dead hands come to mind, LOL.


----------



## JTPotter (Feb 27, 2020)

Now I want a 105mm 2.8 also! great images!


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 27, 2020)

JTPotter said:


> Now I want a 105mm 2.8 also! great images!



You mean a 105mm F2.5 right?


----------



## Peeb (Mar 8, 2020)

Here's another one- processed as a low key shot:



Missy at 105mm by Peeb OK, on Flickr


----------



## Designer (Mar 8, 2020)

Oh, drat!  I wish you had shot this with a deeper DOF.  As it is, I can't see the rendered depth that this lens is capable of.


----------



## JBPhotog (Mar 8, 2020)

Nice one @Peeb. Even F2.5 maximum this lens is magic how it renders the OOF areas. Bokekliscious!


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 9, 2020)

Crap, I feel a huge 105 2.5 fart coming.


----------



## Peeb (Mar 9, 2020)

Designer said:


> Oh, drat!  I wish you had shot this with a deeper DOF.  As it is, I can't see the rendered depth that this lens is capable of.


Happy to post another shot at, maybe f/8.


----------



## Designer (Mar 10, 2020)

Peeb said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, drat!  I wish you had shot this with a deeper DOF.  As it is, I can't see the rendered depth that this lens is capable of.
> ...


I think you'll like it.  Have another look at the dog's whiskers in your first post.  See how they appear to give the photo depth?  Almost as if they are coming out of the photo toward the viewer.


----------



## Peeb (Mar 10, 2020)

Here are the girls, but unfortunately in terrible light (mid-day light).  Shot at f/8.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Apr 4, 2020)

Nikon pre-AI glass on Portra 400 film.


----------



## Peeb (Apr 4, 2020)

Kiron Kid said:


> View attachment 189355 Nikon pre-AI glass on Portra 400 film.


Stunning!  Wonderful shot.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Apr 4, 2020)

Another snap made with this glass on Portra 400 film.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Sep 30, 2020)

A great lens. (Portra 400 film).


----------



## mjcmt (Oct 15, 2020)

I meet Steve McCurry in 1990. We talked some while over the course of a few days. He said he used his 180mm f2.8ED lens for the Afghan Girl. There seems to be a discrepancy.

When I met him he was on a National G. shoot and his kit included 2 Nikon FM2n/MD12 bodies, 24mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8ED, and 300mm f4.5 (which was in hotel room). And always used Kodachrome 25 or 64.

McCurry told me he was at a refuge camp and snapped two photos of the girl then looked down at his camera when he looked up she was gone. He knew immediately he had a good shot, but not how good. He said he thought she was an angel and was obsessed to find her afterwords returning many times to locate her.


----------



## Peeb (Oct 15, 2020)

mjcmt said:


> I meet Steve McCurry in 1990. We talked some while over the course of a few days. He said he used his 180mm f2.8ED lens for the Afghan Girl. There seems to be a discrepancy.
> 
> When I met him he was on a National G. shoot and his kit included 2 Nikon FM2n/MD12 bodies, 24mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8ED, and 300mm f4.5 (which was in hotel room). And always used Kodachrome 25 or 100.
> 
> McCurry told me he was at a refuge camp and snapped two photos of the girl then looked down at his camera when he looked up she was gone. He knew immediately he had a good shot, but not how good. He said he thought she was an angel and was obsessed to find her afterwords returning many times to locate her.


That is amazing!  OK- now I need a 180 f2.8, LOL!!


----------



## Peeb (Oct 15, 2020)

mjcmt said:


> I meet Steve McCurry in 1990. We talked some while over the course of a few days. He said he used his 180mm f2.8ED lens for the Afghan Girl. There seems to be a discrepancy.
> 
> When I met him he was on a National G. shoot and his kit included 2 Nikon FM2n/MD12 bodies, 24mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8ED, and 300mm f4.5 (which was in hotel room). And always used Kodachrome 25 or 100.
> 
> McCurry told me he was at a refuge camp and snapped two photos of the girl then looked down at his camera when he looked up she was gone. He knew immediately he had a good shot, but not how good. He said he thought she was an angel and was obsessed to find her afterwords returning many times to locate her.


BTW, I really, really really miss Kodachrome.  What a great film it was.


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 15, 2020)

Great looking images. That is a very sharp lens.


----------



## mjcmt (Oct 16, 2020)

Peeb said:


> mjcmt said:
> 
> 
> > I meet Steve McCurry in 1990. We talked some while over the course of a few days. He said he used his 180mm f2.8ED lens for the Afghan Girl. There seems to be a discrepancy.
> ...


McCurry mentioned that every year he got new camera bodies from National G. and his lenses would last a couple of years. He never used protective filters and his 180mm had a big nick on the front element. Talk about equipment being nothing but a tool.


----------



## Peeb (Oct 17, 2020)

mjcmt said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > mjcmt said:
> ...


I know, right??  What an amazing ride he must have taken with NG.


----------



## photoflyer (Oct 17, 2020)

Derrel said:


> I paid $169.95.



What do you think the closest equivalent is today and what does it cost?


----------



## Kiron Kid (Oct 28, 2020)

mjcmt said:


> I meet Steve McCurry in 1990. We talked some while over the course of a few days. He said he used his 180mm f2.8ED lens for the Afghan Girl. There seems to be a discrepancy.
> 
> When I met him he was on a National G. shoot and his kit included 2 Nikon FM2n/MD12 bodies, 24mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8ED, and 300mm f4.5 (which was in hotel room). And always used Kodachrome 25 or 64.
> 
> McCurry told me he was at a refuge camp and snapped two photos of the girl then looked down at his camera when he looked up she was gone. He knew immediately he had a good shot, but not how good. He said he thought she was an angel and was obsessed to find her afterwords returning many times to locate her.




Interesting. When I spoke with McCurry, he told me that he used the 105 f/2.5 glass for the Afghan Girl image.


----------



## mjcmt (Oct 28, 2020)

Kiron Kid said:


> mjcmt said:
> 
> 
> > I meet Steve McCurry in 1990. We talked some while over the course of a few days. He said he used his 180mm f2.8ED lens for the Afghan Girl. There seems to be a discrepancy.
> ...


There does seem to be a discrepancy. He also had the 105mm f1.8 lens in his bag along with the 180mm.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Jan 24, 2021)

I use the original pre-AI version. Love it. Attached image shot on Portra 400 film.


----------



## Scott Murphy (Feb 16, 2022)

Just because it is "old" glass does not mean it is still not _outstanding_ glass. Nikon built its reputation as the finest 35mm company in history due in great measure to their _outstanding_ Nikkors. All 31 of my Nikkors, from 8mm f/2.8 fisheye to 600mm f/4 Super Telephoto are non-AI/AI/AIS Nikkors. All are outstanding performers. The older non-AI's have some issues associated with single coatings instead of NIC, but as long as you are conscious of position of the sun or bright lights they still produce terrific images. Wide open, the old 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S has some spherical aberration, but it makes fantastic soft-focus portraits. From f/2 onward, the SA disappears. 

As for the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor, its reputation is _legendary for a reason_. It is a _superb_ lens from the word go, even in the non-AI configuration.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Apr 22, 2022)

I use the original, first edition of the Nikon 105 f/2.5 glass on my D780.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Apr 22, 2022)

mjcmt said:


> I meet Steve McCurry in 1990. We talked some while over the course of a few days. He said he used his 180mm f2.8ED lens for the Afghan Girl. There seems to be a discrepancy.
> 
> When I met him he was on a National G. shoot and his kit included 2 Nikon FM2n/MD12 bodies, 24mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8ED, and 300mm f4.5 (which was in hotel room). And always used Kodachrome 25 or 64.
> 
> McCurry told me he was at a refuge camp and snapped two photos of the girl then looked down at his camera when he looked up she was gone. He knew immediately he had a good shot, but not how good. He said he thought she was an angel and was obsessed to find her afterwords returning many times to locate her.




Interesting. He told me that he used his 105 lens. 🤔


----------

