Re: [Leica] F3 and 105 mm F2.5

[Mike Quinn <mlquinn@san.rr.com>]

My experience with the 105/f2.5 Nikkor was similar to Marks. The 105 was my
first "real" lens, made affordable in the late 60's by hanging it on a
Nikkormat body. I used it almost exclusively for many years, with only
occasional help from a 35mm f2.

When I was experimenting with my first Leica, I decided that I couldn't
afford one and would stick with the 105 unless the Leitz 90mm was something
special. So I tested resolution, contrast, images, etc. and found to my
surprise that everything except the magic of looking through a 100mm lens
came out in favor of leitz!

Now I have more Leica lenses than I can carry, and only a few pieces of
Nikon equipment left. But I couldn't give up the 105 f2.5! It's still magic
to look through (you can SEE the Bokeh), and a much better general purpose
lens than a 90 RF...

> Ken Iisaka wrote:
>> <Snip> I do not miss it but it was a great camera and I loved that 105mm
> f2.5.><Snip> 
>
Mark Rabiner added:
> My mid 70's vintage 105 mm F2.5 was my favorite lens for most of my career
> which
> started then.
> I think it was most peoples favorite lens then who shot people, portraits,
> fashion in 35mm. Nikon owned the field then it seemed to me.
> I did the vast majority of my work with it, it was banged up and I bought it
> that way.
> The 105 mm f2.8 macro does not replace it it is too heavy to use as much. How
> many dandelions can you shoot!
> The 85 F2 would squash people on full length shots, I had to use the 105.
> But now I use the 90 Elmarit on my Leica M with the Leica Winder and it's a
> whole new ballgame.