Old Nikkor 105/2.5 vs. 200/4 as tube lens?

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

jnh
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:34 am
Location: US East Coast

Old Nikkor 105/2.5 vs. 200/4 as tube lens?

Post by jnh »

My mother-in-law just gifted me some of her old 70s/80s Nikon equipment for the express purpose to sell most of it. But there's a lens or two that I might want to keep. Among those are a Nikkor 105/2.5 and a Nikkor 200/4. The latter has been used to good effect as a tube lens, according to a forum thread I found. I would prefer, however, to keep the 105 (and sell the 200), as it will make a nice portrait lens. But I was wondering, if it could also do double duty as a tube lens? There will be a reduction in magnification of course compared to the 200, but could this be compensated with extension tubes? More importantly, has anyone used the 105 as a tube lens? How good is it and how does it compare to the 200?

harisA
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:31 am
Location: Greece

Post by harisA »

105 nikkor may be usefull only with mitutoyo objectives on an aps sensor but i don't know for sure since i don't have any of them.With any other objective you will end up with severe vignette at the corners and there is nothing you can do about it (extension tube won't help)
I own 200mm nikkor and is brilliant as tube lens covering aps with most nikon and olympus objectives out there.

dolmadis
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: UK

Post by dolmadis »

Hi All

Does anyone have a purchase link for a 52mm adapter to Mitutoyo M26 for use on the Nikon Nikkor 200 f/4 please?

Or is it only possible to purchase 55mm to Mitutoyo M26 and step down?

Does that work OK?

Alternatives?

Many thanks


John

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5221
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Just search at Ebay m26 to 52 adapter, there are quite a few of them, someones saying Mitutoyo. Rafcamera is a reliable maker, you could also buy it directly at his website.
Pau

dolmadis
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: UK

Post by dolmadis »

If I put m26 to 52 adapter into ebay uk I get none but if i put m26 to 52 adapter into Google I get ebay uk results.

Thank you again for the positive news to apply perseverance !!

John

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5221
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Ebay.com most the time works better than other countries sites, it only hides to me some (not all) items not shipping to my country. It's the site I usually use to search worldwide.
Pau

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Maybe the 105mm with a 2x teleconverter?

billjanes1
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:59 pm
Location: Lake Forest, IL, USA

Re: Old Nikkor 105/2.5 vs. 200/4 as tube lens?

Post by billjanes1 »

jnh wrote:My mother-in-law just gifted me some of her old 70s/80s Nikon equipment for the express purpose to sell most of it. But there's a lens or two that I might want to keep. Among those are a Nikkor 105/2.5 and a Nikkor 200/4. The latter has been used to good effect as a tube lens, according to a forum thread I found. I would prefer, however, to keep the 105 (and sell the 200), as it will make a nice portrait lens. But I was wondering, if it could also do double duty as a tube lens? There will be a reduction in magnification of course compared to the 200, but could this be compensated with extension tubes? More importantly, has anyone used the 105 as a tube lens? How good is it and how does it compare to the 200?
Among Nikon 200 mm f/4 lenses usable as tube lenses are the 200 mm f/4 AI or 200 mm f/4 AIS and the 200 mm f/4 Nikkor-P.

The AI (shown below from an image downloaded from the net) is much better optically.
Image

The Nikkor-P is shown below from another image downloaded from the net.
Image

See the reviews by Bjorn. I have the 200 f/4 AI and am very pleased with using it as a tube lens. These are available on ebay for around US$100. I ordered the 52 mm adapter form Raff photo in Russia and delivery time was reasonable. A 55 mm adapter from China took forever to ship and I ordered from Raff in frustration.

Regards,

Bill

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8564
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

The AI (shown below from an image downloaded from the net) is much better optically.
Ai == Ai-S optically, I think .
Chris R

mawyatt
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

I have a couple of Nikon 200mm F4 Q types that look like what Bill has shown above. Lou had recommended these, and he had done some testing and verified they are quite good as tube lenses.

These were less than $25 & $40 respectively on eBay, one has the aperture blades stuck open, the other hasn't any problems. These are very old film lenses and won't fit the new DSLR Nikon F mount unless you file a small arch on the base.

Since I use these as "tube" lenses with my Mitutoyo 5X, 10X and 20X, I can use the lens with the aperture stuck open, so it's still useful. A simple Mitutoyo to 52mm adapter is all thats required.

Another good tube lens recommended by Lou, Beatsy and others is the Vivitar 135mm Komine version. This will vignette on full frame but works well on DX bodies. You'll need a couple inexpensive adapters for this lens to the F mount and another for the objective.

Also, the Raynox 150 and 250 magnifying lens work well as tube lenses (208mm & 125mm respectively). These are inexpensive ($60. each) and require a bellows or various sets of extenders and adapters to work. Rik did some nice evaluations some time ago on these, and they faired very well against the established tube lenses. If you use these with the extender screw types, be sure to flock the interior of them...and the back of your adapters as well.

I have these, Nikon and Vivitar and they work well for me thanks to Rik, Lou and other's recommendations.

Best,

Mike

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

I've had good luck with both the 200QC and 200AI/AIS versions as tube lenses. If you go for a 200Q, I recommend getting the 200QC version with coated optics. Many of these later versions (including mine) were AI converted with factory aperture rings, so look for one of those if you're going to mount directly to a Nikon camera. I've read you can damage the camera if you try to use a non-AI lens, though don't know truth of this.

Here are 4 examples available on eBay right now:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Exc-Nikon-NIKKO ... SwiYFXJE7r

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Exc-Nikon-NIKKO ... SwlMFZKpLI

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-NIKKOR-Q- ... Sw3h1ZUtfL

www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-NIKKOR-Q- ... Sw44BYQ0Rl

billjanes1
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:59 pm
Location: Lake Forest, IL, USA

Post by billjanes1 »

ray_parkhurst wrote:I've had good luck with both the 200QC and 200AI/AIS versions as tube lenses. If you go for a 200Q, I recommend getting the 200QC version with coated optics. Many of these later versions (including mine) were AI converted with factory aperture rings, so look for one of those if you're going to mount directly to a Nikon camera. I've read you can damage the camera if you try to use a non-AI lens, though don't know truth of this.
Here is an old post by a trusted expert on the subject of non-AI lenses and possible damage to modern cameras.

Bill[/url]

mawyatt
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

Here's a link to Richard Haw's site modding the 200mm F4 Q lens to work with modern Nikon DSLR.

https://richardhaw.com/2016/07/24/nikkor-200mm-f4-kai/

Best,

Mike

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I now have both versions of the 200 f4, and oddly enough, the older Q version is slightly better as a tube lens than the newer version.

mawyatt
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

Lou Jost wrote:I now have both versions of the 200 f4, and oddly enough, the older Q version is slightly better as a tube lens than the newer version.
Lou,

That's what I have, the older Q type. Seems pretty good, but I don't have the newer version to compare as you have.

Best,

Mike

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic