NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on August 27, 2016, 11:09:35
-
hi! the 135/3.5 series of Nikkors has always been amazing in my experience and they are all very reasonably priced. :o :o :o
anybody still shoots with this thing? I got this one in the junk bazaar and it had a ding on the hod but other than that, the glass was good (just a bit dirty) ::)
-
some sample of this thing wide-open :o :o :o
the performance reminds me of the Nikkor-Q version:
https://richardhaw.com/2016/08/21/repair-nikkor-q-135mm-f3-5/
but with better coatings. the optics were changed from the original 4/3 to 4/4 in this version. I am not sure why and how it changed the performance of this lens,though.
i am liking this thing a lot to be honest...really good for sunny days
-
One of the best value for money.
Light, tiny, with integrated hood.
I have read on internet that the best optical one is a old version. I didn't check, however, and I don't remember which one is the best.
Your collection is growing, Richard ! ;)
-
I bought one a few years ago while my 135/2 Ais was in being fixed. I now have the 135/3.5 Ai, 135/2.8 Ai, ad 135/2 Ais. Picture quality of all closely match each other at like apertures.
-
I own a 135/3.5 AI and a 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q with AI Nikon AI kit. I haven't use the 135/3.5 AI much lately as I'm more inclined to use my 135/2.8 AIS.
My first 135/3.5 AI gave stunning results in a 5 minute exposure at f/5.6. Five minutes with a tripod mounted F2 means no vibrations and if you nail the focus f/5.6 must be the sweet spot. It's a worthy lens and it's small, light and unobtrusive compared to AF Nikkors today. I use a Nikon HS-8 or HS-14 lens hood and leave them in place. I use a Tupperware #G tumbler cap as recommended by the Nikon School in days of old. I don't care for the built in hoods on 105mm and 135mm Nikkor lenses.
Dave
-
I'm quite fond of the 135 mm class, though in general prefer the 105 Nikkors.
Most of the 135 shots have been with the 50-135, with the 135/3.5 coming in second place. Various other models (35-135 AIS/AF, 135/4 Bellows, 135/2, 135/2.8 etc.) fill the next rungs on the frequency ladder.
I got several of the prime 135 f/3.5 versions and they are all nice, compact, and pretty sharp for their vintage and simplified optical designs. At their modest asking price it is hard to go wrong with these lenses.
Besides its use for ordinary photography, I found the 135/3.5 valuable as a relay lens for an array of optical experiments involving cine and microscope optics. In particular, I fondly recall it being used in conjunction with anamorphic front attachments. Long since disassembled, must set up some of these contraptions again on a digital camera.
Back in the days of film, I had a looming front page assignment for a children's magazine and my son just had had a bicycle accident, so why not make the most out of this with the 135/3.5Nikkor and an anamorphic attachment (from a 16 mm cine system, cannot remember brand now but it should be in a cupboard drawer somewhere .. I presume)?
-
One of the best value for money.
I have read on internet that the best optical one is a old version. I didn't check, however, and I don't remember which one is the best.
it might be the Nikkor-Q :o :o :o
yes, it is growing! time to step on the brakes and slow down ::)
-
I bought one a few years ago while my 135/2 Ais was in being fixed. I now have the 135/3.5 Ai, 135/2.8 Ai, ad 135/2 Ais. Picture quality of all closely match each other at like apertures.
it might be because they are usually made with very few glass :o :o :o
-
My first 135/3.5 AI gave stunning results in a 5 minute exposure at f/5.6. Five minutes with a tripod mounted F2 means no vibrations and if you nail the focus f/5.6 must be the sweet spot. It's a worthy lens.
I thought so,too. f/5.6 seems to be pretty good :o :o :o but wide open its already impressive! ::)
-
Besides its use for ordinary photography, I found the 135/3.5 valuable as a relay lens for an array of optical experiments involving cine and microscope optics. In particular, I fondly recall it being used in conjunction with anamorphic front attachments. Long since disassembled, must set up some of these contraptions again on a digital camera.
never heard of it being used like this but having very few elements is probably good for this. :o :o :o
do you think Nikon will make an updated version of this classic? ::)
this is a secret weapon for cheapskates!
-
My personal favorite among the 135mm Nikkors is the 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C
With the original 4/3 lens grouping and modern SIC multicoating, the larger focus throw of 190 degrees, very good sharpness and contrast wide open this lens beats the performance of most 80-200 and 70-200 f2,8 zooms at 135mm.
I found the lens to be quite flare resistant, as long as it's used with a deep and narrow hood.
I also like the 135mm f3,5 for close-up photography using the PK-11 through 13 and PN-11
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7237/27030534325_e7755cac29_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7036/26936746312_548791d592_b.jpg)
The photo below was also made with the 135mm f3,5, this time used wide open
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/2/1664/26250516701_b3cece2131_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FZEL4x)
-
nice pics! why do some people say that the 4/3 is superior to the 4/4? :o :o :o
-
Not sure, but I got better results with my copy of the 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C then with the 135mm f3,5 Ai-S I tried.
I tried 2 different Nikkor-Q.C's, one Nikkor-Q and one 135mm f3,5 Ai-S Nikkor. Reading Rolands site the Ai version even has a 220 degree focus throw so might yield better results still.
All the copies I tried were used on a D300, D3 and D800. In the end results between the 135's were close enough that I decided to keep my current 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C because:
a) I paid $50 for it and bought one for $75 that I returned to the seller because of a stiff focus ring
2) unlike the Ai/Ai-S this lens has a scalloped metal focus ring and optically fits in better with my other lenses
iii) the Q.C, for me, did a bit better then the Q shooting against the sun
If such criteria become deciding for my choice between lense sthen the optical qualities are close enough to equal.
John Hinkey prefers his 135mm f3,5 Ai over any of the other variants, which has the 4/4 optical arrangement
So with that I wouldn't be able to say one is better then the other. I can only say that after trying a few copies the one I liked most was an older 4/3 design lens, but it wasn't because the other lenses were not as sharp or contrasty. Nor was it related to color reproduction wich was equally good on all including the single coated Nikkor-Q, which needed a bit more WB adjustment in Lightroom for me to like the output
-
I had a 135/3.5 AI-S for several years and it was a great lens, but I found the contrast to not be so great at times and it really didn't like being pointed near to or at the sun. Thus for landscapes I've replaced it with a 135/3.4 APO Telyt.
That being said, this lens held up to the 36MP of my D800 and even the 42.2MP of my A7RII quite well and I managed quite a few excellent images with it.
Plus, I'm very fond of lenses with built-in hoods :)
-
nice pics! why do some people say that the 4/3 is superior to the 4/4? :o :o :o
There are two Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 versions:
The first was one of the original lenses released with the Nikon F in 1959. The optics of this lens were taken directly from the rangefinder version so the optical design goes back to 1950. Early production lenses have 9 aperture blades and the focal length is marked 13.5cm, later changing to 6 aperture blades and 135mm. I don't know much about the performance of this version, it seems to be fairly good, Nikon was certainly happy enough to keep the same optics going in one form or another form for 20 years.
In 1969 the lens was updated. It remains a 4/3 design with a similar arrangement, but is an all-new design and not a modification of the old one. The overall appearance is very similar with the chrome and black barrel, it can be distinguished by the scalloped aperture ring and 7 aperture blades (the older has a finely knurled aperture ring and 6 blades). The aperture blades are curved (similar to the gauss 105/2.5), so when stopped down the opening, while not fully circular, are nicely rounded septagons. The background bokeh is also smooth and sharpness is good (also similar to the 105/2.5), so the rendition is generally beautiful. I regard it as a longer, slower version of the 105/2.5.
The multicoated Nikkor-Q.C was introduced in 1973, now with an all black barrel but otherwise the same optically and mechanically.
The K version was introduced in 1975 with a modern styled barrel but the same optically.
In 1977 the completely revised AI 135/3.5 was introduced. It sports a new 4/4 optical design - very similar to the optics found in the AI 135/2.8, series-E 100/2.8 and series-E 135/2.8. The new lens is smaller and lighter, close focus limit is reduced from 1.5m to 1.3m, and it now has a built-in hood. The focus throw is longer than the pre-AI versions, but only because the focus range is greater, when focused to the same distance the focus throw is actually slightly shorter. It is a good performer, I found this version is very sharp but it lost some of the "roundness" of the previous version.
The AIS version from 1981 has the same optics as the AI version. The built-in hood is a little shorter and does not stay in place as firmly. The focus throw also reduced from 220° to a still respectable 180° (better than the 140° of the AIS 105/2.5). Externally the AIS 135/3.5 looks almost identical to the AIS 105/2.5. Due to the better hood and longer focus throw, I prefer the AI version.
-
There are two Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 versions:
The first was one of the original lenses released with the Nikon F in 1959. The optics of this lens were taken directly from the rangefinder version so the optical design goes back to 1950. Early production lenses have 9 aperture blades and the focal length is marked 13.5cm, later changing to 6 aperture blades and 135mm. I don't know much about the performance of this version, it seems to be fairly good, Nikon was certainly happy enough to keep the same optics going in one form or another form for 20 years.
In 1969 the lens was updated. It remains a 4/3 design with a similar arrangement, but is an all-new design and not a modification of the old one.
Here (third picture) there are the optical designs of the two 135mm f/3.5 Q versions:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/TEST_Nikkor_lenses_@_135mm/00_pag.htm
Actually lenses thickness and curvature are quite different.
-
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/TEST_Nikkor_lenses_@_135mm/00_pag.htm
thank you for the nice link. it is in italian but it's still helpful :o :o :o
-
I had a 135/3.5 AI-S for several years and it was a great lens, but I found the contrast to not be so great at times and it really didn't like being pointed near to or at the sun.
this seems to be the common weakness of this series :o :o :o
i find that to be true on the Nikkor-Q but the Ai one showed better resistance to veiling flare.
-
The first was one of the original lenses released with the Nikon F in 1959. The optics of this lens were taken directly from the rangefinder version so the optical design goes back to 1950. Early production lenses have 9 aperture blades and the focal length is marked 13.5cm, later changing to 6 aperture blades and 135mm. I don't know much about the performance of this version, it seems to be fairly good, Nikon was certainly happy enough to keep the same optics going in one form or another form for 20 years.
Hi, Roland! this is my 135mm junk bros..
wow, this is indeed a very long-lived design :o :o :o
by the way, your super useful site did not mention the change in element groupings, just something small that I noticed.
-
Oh, but it does! Go to the "Specifications" page, or the "Lenses" page (which combines serial/specs/accessories) and you will see the optical construction in elements/groups. Maybe I should also add it to the serial number page??
Of course the number alone is not sufficient to distinguish the two Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 lenses, both are 4/3. But if you read the text at the top of each page you will see: "Versions with the same optical design are grouped together." Perhaps I should add that thick grey lines separate lenses with different optical design, so you can very quickly see which models have the same optics (thinner grey line indicates the optics are basically the same, but have been "tweaked" to improve performance)
Nice little set you have there, you can easily see how the AI is smaller, in spite of having a built-in hood and focusing closer. You can also see the distance between infinity and the 20m mark is a little closer on the AI version, which shows the focus throw is shorter, but not my much.
I really should use my 135/3.5 lenses more often, I generally grab my 75-150/3.5 which is a much more flexible lens...
-
thank you for the nice link. it is in italian but it's still helpful :o :o :o
Chrome automatically translates it, does quite a good job.
-
... Maybe I should also add it to the serial number page??...
No need to change the layout, everybody knows there are multiple pages - Keep the simplicity as is ;)
-
Oh, but it does! Go to the "Specifications" page, or the "Lenses" page (which combines serial/specs/accessories) and you will see the optical construction in elements/groups. Maybe I should also add it to the serial number page??
oh, i was not implying that :o :o :o
it's just that some of the descriptions on the serial numbers page have the corresponding optical formula and some do not.
-
The only optical information on the serial number page (besides the grouping by optical design) are a handful of short comments, such as for the 200/5.6 medical: "same optics as Nikkor-Q 20cm"; and rangefinder Nikkor-O 2.1cm: "same optics as F-mount version".
I probably should also add:
- Nikkor-T 10.5/4 shares same optics for rangefinder and F-mount versions
- F-mount Nikkor-Q 13.5cm has same optics from the rangefinder version
- F-mount Nikkor-P 10.5cm/2.5 optics are based on the rangefinder version
- Maybe also note where Xenotar 105/2.5 begins etc
Is that the sort of detail you would like to see? I'm all for adding more to the page as long as it is useful and fits within the space provided.
I have also considered making the pages fixed width rather than expanding to 100% width - thought it might make them more readable when viewing on smaller screens (phones, tablets) - the layout would stay the same instead of becoming very squashed, although you would have to scroll sideways instead :o
-
It'd be neato, but not essential, to have the lens design diagrams for the lenses in a click-to link the same way the product photos show up.
-
Is that the sort of detail you would like to see? I'm all for adding more to the page as long as it is useful and fits within the space provided.
not really. it's just that the bit about the 135 was forgotten. :o :o :o the site is fine as it is.
i think i have some lenses that are off your S/N chart. i forgot which ones.
-
Roland, I appreciate your effort and will to better your website. But I, for one, don't think any additional column for your database would be necessary.
The detailed info on the individual lenses can be obtained elsewhere, if one will (some lens names are already linked to such websites). The serial numbers are what make your website unique, and the current additional info in the "Notes" column are good enough to make the difference of the versions clear.
-
In my experience this is likely the most under-rated lens among the old MF Nikkors. It has also long been by far the cheapest Nikkor lens available on the used market in my area. I have several early (pre-AI ring kit convertible) versions that I treasure for their resolution and contrast. These early versions seem to be the best of the bunch, but any of them will do you well. Mine easily out-perform anything else in that focal range (including the 105's of various kinds). Enjoy.