Highest Serial Number 105PN?

[RobertOToole]

I don't think I've seen a 105RF that had a trim ring. I always use my 105PN in reverse, mounting via the trim ring threads, and the trim ring goes in a drawer. Might be that others do the same thing and Rayfact realized they could just leave it off with no detriment to usability. It's actually something of a benefit since you get ~50% of the lens length as "free" extension. Or maybe all those trim rings are sitting in drawers somewhere. But if indeed this ebay lens is NOS, then it reinforces the notion that Rayfact didn't supply trim rings with these lenses.

I've had a different experience The few Rayfact 1x and 2x I've owned and had in the office to test, which is not as many as you've seen Ray, have always had trim rings. Every single one.

I would trust Rayfact over a reseller in Korea. All the Rayfact photos have rings installed.

I think you are right about drawers full of rings! I once asked a reseller someplace, Please make sure to include the front trim ring as in the ad, the seller wrote back, sure okay, I've got a drawer full of them, I'll include an extra or two

[RobertOToole]

.........I always use my 105PN in reverse, mounting via the trim ring threads, and the trim ring goes in a drawer. Might be that others do the same thing and Rayfact realized they could just leave it off with no detriment to usability. It's actually something of a benefit since you get ~50% of the lens length as "free" extension. .......

According to Nikon the none of the Printing Nikkors are symmetrical. I'm sure its going to be close to perfection in either direction so there is no real benefit or drawback from mounting either way, but its true.

The element layout looks symmetrical but even the element diameters are a little larger on one side! It should be a little faster in one direction I would guess.

This reminds me Ray, I owe you a favor for you mentioning this, it just hit me, you made me realize I never updated the Printing-Nikkor/Scanner-Nikkor patent info on my site, and I never did finish the 105 Printing Nikkor page.

Best,

Robert

[ray_parkhurst]

The few Rayfact 1x and 2x I've owned and had in the office to test, which is not as many as you've seen Ray, have always had trim rings. Every single one.

I would trust Rayfact over a reseller in Korea. All the Rayfact photos have rings installed.

Agreed, the resellers only get the lenses after they've been used, and the ring may be lost. Seems maybe even for this NOS boxed one.

But I actually haven't owned any 105RF or 95RF lenses myself, only seen them for sale on eBay, all without trim rings. I've always trusted in your reviews saying they are the same as the 105PN and 95PN, so didn't need to buy them. Thanks for that.

[RobertOToole]

The few Rayfact 1x and 2x I've owned and had in the office to test, which is not as many as you've seen Ray, have always had trim rings. Every single one.

I would trust Rayfact over a reseller in Korea. All the Rayfact photos have rings installed.

Agreed, the resellers only get the lenses after they've been used, and the ring may be lost. Seems maybe even for this NOS boxed one.

But I actually haven't owned any 105RF or 95RF lenses myself, only seen them for sale on eBay, all without trim rings. I've always trusted in your reviews saying they are the same as the 105PN and 95PN, so didn't need to buy them. Thanks for that.

Yes, I just wanted to confirm.

This is for the benefit of all the future thread readers, Ray already knows all this.


The Printing-Nikkor 105A and the Rayfact 1x I tested were identical in IQ as far as I could see. When reviewing the test images it was almost like I made an error and was looking at images from the same lens!

Also Printing-Nikkor 95A and Rayfact 2x, same thing. Both really stellar!

Also, one more and maybe the most important, the way Nikon Rayfact put the lenses together with the locked cells, when I did the best PN test, I was surprised on how consistent all the copies were between 105As, or 150 floats. That was nice to see. Zero outliers in each group. Its good to know the Nikon/Rayfact are engineered to perform in a rough industrial environment.

All the Printing-Nikkors Rayfact 1x and 2x, have two cells that mount to a central iris housing and everything is covered by a outer shell, with Rayfact engraved on that. At the factory in the QC process they adjust the cells and rotate them for best performance, and they mark the alignment position. I did have one 105mm PN lens once that was a loaner from a friend and seemed to be something off about it, more CAs than usual I believe. I removed the shell, and the alignment marks seems to have shifted. I rotated it back, retested, and it seemed to be okay. This lens has years of hard use at some film dupe lab so maybe it was dropped one time too many. But its nice to see the lens was okay in the end.

I have images of the PNs taken apart I plan to post on my site on the PN page or if you are curious send me a message and I can send or post the pics.

[ray_parkhurst]

According to Nikon the none of the Printing Nikkors are symmetrical. I'm sure its going to be close to perfection in either direction so there is no real benefit or drawback from mounting either way, but its true.

The element layout looks symmetrical but even the element diameters are a little larger on one side! It should be a little faster in one direction I would guess.

I suspect those M=1.181 lenses from Rayfact may just be standard 105RF lenses, but spec'd for their optimum mag. Do you know if this is the case? If so, which direction is for the higher mag, and which for the lower? When used at 1:1, I agree there is probably no significant difference in performance, but occasionally I push the 105PNA to 1.4:1 or even higher, or occasionally down to 0.7:1. In these cases, using it in the "correct" direction might make some difference. Or maybe not. Anyway, if you have info on this it would be appreciated.

[RobertOToole]

According to Nikon the none of the Printing Nikkors are symmetrical. I'm sure its going to be close to perfection in either direction so there is no real benefit or drawback from mounting either way, but its true.

The element layout looks symmetrical but even the element diameters are a little larger on one side! It should be a little faster in one direction I would guess.

I suspect those M=1.181 lenses from Rayfact may just be standard 105RF lenses, but spec'd for their optimum mag. Do you know if this is the case? If so, which direction is for the higher mag, and which for the lower? When used at 1:1, I agree there is probably no significant difference in performance, but occasionally I push the 105PNA to 1.4:1 or even higher, or occasionally down to 0.7:1. In these cases, using it in the "correct" direction might make some difference. Or maybe not. Anyway, if you have info on this it would be appreciated.

Hi Ray,

Read over the patent again. In the lens diagrams, the lenses is not symmetrical. The first example the lens can be symmetrical, even though the drawing shows one side, having larger elements, the second design its not symmetrical. SG is protective glass. SP is iris. GF is front group. O, object, I, image of course.

But in the patent text, its mentions the lens is symmetrical at 1x but the patent is for a chromatic aberration correction design from 0.3x to 3x, not a 1x lens (the two samples are for an 0.8x lens). I think you are right, the same design is slightly different for the various mag lenses they sold, and for the scanner-nikkor.

Here they mention magnification and focus in the patent.

From the Nikon Patent:

In addition, when the B (mag) upper limit is set to 1.3 and the lower limit to 0.7, it is more preferable that even better optical performance of the present invention can be expected. When B (mag) is set to -1.0, the optical System can be a complete Symmetrical type.

Moreover, the focusing may be performed by mov
ing the entire optical System along the optical axis, by 
varying the distance between an object and the optical
 System, or by varying the distance between the optical System and an imaging device.

Sorry I couldn't add more than that. There might be more in the patent that will take more time to decode.

[ray_parkhurst]

So it seems the 105PN is probably symmetrical per the patent. When I get home I will check element dimensions to see. I think you were doing that for your 105PN page as well.

[ray_parkhurst]

SN 5001299 just showed up on eBay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/395152928804

Great price for the condition IMO.

[Chris S.]

That one is a beauty. Glad I already have one, or I'd be reaching for my wallet.

--Chris S.

[RobertOToole]

That one is a beauty. Glad I already have one, or I'd be reaching for my wallet.

--Chris S.

6 months or so ago, I watched someone in Japan post the largest collection of PNs I've ever seen go up for sale (not eBay). The guy in Japan had some super rare ones, both 1x and 2x lenses. They all had great prices, maybe $600-900 (I shared that info here and on my Patreon). At least 6 or 7 lenses. If I had the extra money I would have snatched them all up. I didn't. Most, not all, of the lenses showed up later on eBay posted by Japanese sellers for $1300+.

Best,

Robert

[ray_parkhurst]

Here's another beautiful 105PNA from Japanese eBay seller. Great price for the condition IMO.

Serial number is 1310:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/395198303329

Edited to add: and here's another one, serial 1302, though not cheap:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/395295550215

[ray_parkhurst]

Here's another 105PN, SN 5001314, on ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/315926120887

I think this is the full list including the various new ones from last couple years. Most of the new ones are high serial numbers, from latest production. Added ones in bold:

153
168
177
199
221
241
247
263
284
285
319
328
351
355
358
365
372
379
402
404
411
414
419
420
425
429
438
444
463
467
527
575
668
783
886
1086
1091
1281
1286
1299
1302
1310
1312
1314
1520
1521