I’m Starting to Get Upset Nikon Hasn’t Remade the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5
Yesterday, I shared a deep-dive into the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens made by my friend Gordon Laing. As I was putting that piece together, a thought that has been flitting in and out of my consciousness for the last several months resurfaced: “wait, why hasn’t Nikon remade this lens?”
We’ve touched on this topic a few times in discussions on The PetaPixel Podcast, and most recently two weeks ago after a neat segue from our discussion on the overall lack of gap primes, but it’s worth revisiting. While the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 is the lens I’m focusing on, there are plenty of other lenses made by other active camera companies that could — and should — be remade, too. It’s just that the 105mm f/2.5 is so universally beloved to the point of legendary status that it feels criminal it’s been set out to pasture.
We’re talking about one of Nikon’s best selling lenses and one of the most famous telephoto portrait lenses it ever made. And while yes, Nikon has gone on to make other 105mm lenses, including offering the 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro lens — which is great, don’t get me wrong — it forgoes one of the most notable benefits of the classic 105mm lens: compactness.
In the modern camera era, even going back to the tail end of DSLR development, camera makers have focused more on making clinically sharp, excellent performing lenses as opposed to interesting lenses. I made that case five years ago when I argued that perfection is boring and that camera and lens makers should spend a little bit of time making interesting lenses, too.
I still believe that should be a focus, but I’m here now to argue that it’s not just interesting I’m looking for. I’m willing to sacrifice a bit of that perfection if it means gaining in other areas, like size and weight.
Nikon’s 105mm f/2.8 macro lens is nice (if not a bit slow to focus, according to some users), but it’s really big. It’s 3.4 inches across, which is the full length of the classic 105mm f/2.5. I understand that a new, updated version of this classic telephoto is going to get a big thicker and heavier when we add an autofocusing motor to it, but striving to keep it this compact should be a top priority. We can lose that macro capability, too, since it would have a different use case: portraits and street photography.
I adore 105mm for street photography but the bigger the lens, the more difficult and tiresome that becomes. There is a reason I like the Fujifilm X100VI for travel and street work: it’s small. Imagine taking the Nikon Zf and mounting an updated, compact 105mm f/2.5 to it. It can even keep that classic styling to better match with the look and feel of the Zf. You can’t tell me that doesn’t sound amazing.
Right now, it feels like lens makers feel like they have two choices: make cheap, plasticky lenses or super high-end, high-performance optics. While there are certainly exceptions, the middle ground seems to have been largely abandoned.
I urge Nikon, and every other camera maker, to bring back the compact telephoto prime. It’s okay if it’s not super fast and it doesn’t have to feature corner-to-corner sharpness either. I’m starving for a return to a form factor that is easy to carry while still giving me character-rich photos.
Another perfect example of a lens that I’d love to see again is the Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 AI-S. Like the 105mm f/2.5, it’s small and light but takes dynamite photos with gorgeous defocus and tons of character. Is it perfect? Heck no. And I don’t want it to be.
There is actually an argument for Nikon to restart production of a lot of its vintage lenses with a re-mount to modern mirrorless, especially now that RED is a Nikon company and the cameras accept Z-mount. Filmmakers love vintage glass — there are whole businesses whose sole purpose is re-mounting older optics because of the beautifully unique image they render. There is a market for these lenses and it’s not even just for photographers like me.
Nikon, you sold a ton of of the 105mm f/2.5 lenses during its nearly 50 year production run and that wasn’t a coincidence. Photographers love this lens because of its combination of features and they didn’t complain that it wasn’t optically perfect — and they wouldn’t now. There is no reason not to give us this lens again.
Image credits: Photographs by Jaron Schneider
