The 100mm Series E lens is one of the best of the several E lenses made. Optically, it is close in resolution to the 105mm 2.5 Nikkor. However, the Nikkors made after about 1972 are multi-coated, whereas no Series E lens was ever multi-coated, so contrast and color saturation probably go to the Nikkor. The 105mm used a metal lens barrel and fittings, very robust, as are all Nikkors of the pre-autofocus era. The Series E lenses, including the 100mm, are mounted in plastic, not as durable or damage resistant. Because the 105mm is arguably the better lens and much more expensive when new, you might expect a used price difference to favor the 100mm E-lens, but the relative rarity of that 100mm commands a price which puts it on a par with many 105mm lenses. Advantage: 105mm 2.5 Nikkor.
I own but only use the Nikon 100mm f/2.8 Series E lens as an inexpensive disposable backup to the following 105mm lenses: 105mm f/2.8 Takumar 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro 105mm f/4 Nikkor short mount macro I use these 105mm lenses for portraits, photojournalism, documentary, street, macro, and closeup work. This video has inspired me to perform some comparison tests.
I call it "Cheat lens" because when I need to pack really light I always take it as my second prime fwith APS-C camera - it's very light and compact (smaller than vast majority of 50mm lenses even) and gives you really good reach and compression. You can always carry it around in the pocket.
Just checking on ebay, these lenses are not expensive at all - will add one to my wish list. I have an early 105mm f/2.5 that I adore for portraits and flowers (though its close-focus of about 1m is a bit far by today's standards), but these early ones are definitely more for arty use today. I love my shots with it (the first photo I ever sold to a paying customer was taking with this lens), but it is quirky.
feeding the algorithm. I've had that nikon and a pentax 100 2.8 from the same era. Nice to have a technical explanation of why i tended to reach for the nikon.
I'm going to whine mildly about not seeing the 100mm and 105mm go head to head in this video with comparison shots because I wanted to see Steve McCurry go down. The whine is the almost inaudible nostril whistle only heard in a quiet room and you can feel how each untrimmed nose hair moves while reading a book and sipping something tasty. TYVM for the vid.
@@DavidHancock Those 1960´s to 1970´s and even some i 1980´s old designed Nikkor lenses can be bad to very bad ! The Nikkor 105mm 2.5 from the same period as the Nikon E 100mm 2.8 is performing better . I had Nikon cameras in the early 1980´s and I did not like those Nikon E lenses.
That depends totally on the settings on your camera. 400 IS film will usually be something like 12 ISO shooting IR. So indoors or even outside at f/16, definitely not. But outside in full sun at f/1.4, maybe.
The 100mm Series E lens is one of the best of the several E lenses made. Optically, it is close in resolution to the 105mm 2.5 Nikkor. However, the Nikkors made after about 1972 are multi-coated, whereas no Series E lens was ever multi-coated, so contrast and color saturation probably go to the Nikkor. The 105mm used a metal lens barrel and fittings, very robust, as are all Nikkors of the pre-autofocus era. The Series E lenses, including the 100mm, are mounted in plastic, not as durable or damage resistant. Because the 105mm is arguably the better lens and much more expensive when new, you might expect a used price difference to favor the 100mm E-lens, but the relative rarity of that 100mm commands a price which puts it on a par with many 105mm lenses. Advantage: 105mm 2.5 Nikkor.
I own but only use the Nikon 100mm f/2.8 Series E lens as an inexpensive disposable backup to the following 105mm lenses:
105mm f/2.8 Takumar
105mm f/2.5 Nikkor
105mm f/2.8 Nikkor macro
105mm f/4 Nikkor short mount macro
I use these 105mm lenses for portraits, photojournalism, documentary, street, macro, and closeup work.
This video has inspired me to perform some comparison tests.
NO ! But you are right that it is a cheap lens, when new in 1982 the Nikon E 100mm 2.8 was 2.5x cheaper then the Nikkor 105mm 2.5 Lens.
I call it "Cheat lens" because when I need to pack really light I always take it as my second prime fwith APS-C camera - it's very light and compact (smaller than vast majority of 50mm lenses even) and gives you really good reach and compression. You can always carry it around in the pocket.
Just checking on ebay, these lenses are not expensive at all - will add one to my wish list. I have an early 105mm f/2.5 that I adore for portraits and flowers (though its close-focus of about 1m is a bit far by today's standards), but these early ones are definitely more for arty use today. I love my shots with it (the first photo I ever sold to a paying customer was taking with this lens), but it is quirky.
feeding the algorithm. I've had that nikon and a pentax 100 2.8 from the same era. Nice to have a technical explanation of why i tended to reach for the nikon.
I'm going to whine mildly about not seeing the 100mm and 105mm go head to head in this video with comparison shots because I wanted to see Steve McCurry go down. The whine is the almost inaudible nostril whistle only heard in a quiet room and you can feel how each untrimmed nose hair moves while reading a book and sipping something tasty.
TYVM for the vid.
@@seoulrydr I've gotta save that for a showdown video. 🤓 But first I need to fix my 105.
@@DavidHancock I hope that Nikkor 105mm is from the same period as the Nikon E 100mm !
@@cameraprepper7938 not the one I have. It's pre-AI, which in some ways is a bit more fair (from a claims perspective) as it's pre-C, too.
@@DavidHancock Those 1960´s to 1970´s and even some i 1980´s old designed Nikkor lenses can be bad to very bad ! The Nikkor 105mm 2.5 from the same period as the Nikon E 100mm 2.8 is performing better . I had Nikon cameras in the early 1980´s and I did not like those Nikon E lenses.
Can you handhold some infared 400 film and do a video?, I notice it has the IR index on the lens and wanted to see handheld results.
That depends totally on the settings on your camera. 400 IS film will usually be something like 12 ISO shooting IR. So indoors or even outside at f/16, definitely not. But outside in full sun at f/1.4, maybe.
@@DavidHancock yea, I recently started to learn about it with film, definitely not for everybody.
@@DavidHancock Thanks for answering my questions.
Great review. Off to find one!