NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: oldfauser on February 06, 2016, 16:25:30
-
After reading the thread on the Nikon 36-72mm f/3.5 Series E lens, I realized i actually have an old one on my display shelf attached to an old FG :) Sitting next to it is my old 35-105 AI-s lens.
I am wondering about this lens - not much discussion on it, but what i could find is that there seems to be a large variation in the samples! (and it is available very cheap - people seem to almost give it away). Nikon did make it in three versions, AI-s, AF and AF-D with it having a "macro" mode on the first two versions.
I do remember using it most of the time on my FG as my standard lens; quite a bit less on my FA as I started to acquire faster prime lenses for better low light performance with film.
Now that i have a DF, I'll give it another try :) Related question - in the non-CPU lens data, what should i put in, 3.5 or 4.5 for the speed?
Thoughts?
Art
-
Art - the only thought I have is - I wish I had that focal length on a new generation lens.
-
The various Nikkor models with the 35-105/3.5-4.5 designation sold in great numbers, but always carried a poor reputation for variable quality. In terms of build, though, the MF model was sturdily constructed and very well made. The AF versions had this depressing 'plastic' impression about them, but to be fair, the latest AF version did look quite nice until you scrutinised it up close.
Two main factors contributed to the lower esteem for these lenses: the long near distance that made the 'wide' part of the focal range awkward to use, and optics that had to be prone to getting easily misaligned in use as image quality of the many samples I have examines ranged from acceptable to abysmal. No wonder people were intent of getting rid of these lenses for cheap.
Like the earlier 43-86, the 35-105, or to be specific, the AF/AFD model, does much better in IR than in visible light. This applies only to the AF version as the MF 35-105 has a prominent IR hot spot. The AFD 35-105 Nikkor is one of my favourite walk-around lenses for IR.
-
A few examples of shots done with the AFD 35-105 (in IR).
-
To answer the question of how you should enter non-CPU lens data: there are two main schools of thought here.
1. Average method:
f-number (average of range f/3.5 to f/4.5): f/4
focal length (average of 35-105): 70 mm
2. Extreme-value method:
At the wide end:
f-number: f/3.5
focal length: 35 mm
At the long end:
f-number: f/4.5
focal length: 105 mm
The last approach might correlate the aperture read-out a trifle more realistic for a given input light level, but is very awkward to use. In practice, the average method is quick and easy, and even the aperture read-out will be within 1/3 stop of the effective value.
-
Bjørn, you are correct! I started looking back at old photos I took with this lens... now I remember why it's on the "display" shelf :)
It does look nice on the shelf though.... and i think it's going to stay there! (I'll use my 36-72 f/3.5 Series E when i get the "zoom" urge)
thanks
Art
-
Just a bit of background to the 35-105 zoom. It's predecessor was the AI 43-86/3.5, which was for many years the only affordable mid-range zoom. The 43-86 was replaced by two lenses:
1. 36-72/3.5 - like the 43-86 it is has a 2x zoom ratio with a constant f/3.5 aperture, a one-touch zoom-focus ring, a 1.2m close focus limit and a similarly strange focal length. This lens was the beginning of the line which lead to "kit zooms" such as the the various 28-80 and 18-55 lenses.
2. The AIS 35-105/3.5-4.5. This lens retains a similar overall appearance as the 43-86 but the zoom range extends in both directions at the expense of becoming a variable aperture zoom. It has the same 1.2m close focus limit, but there is also a new macro mode which permits closer focusing through the entire zoom range. The macro ring basically engages a short built-in extension tube. Extension makes more of a difference with shorter focal lengths so the greatest magnification is at the 35mm zoom setting. This lens was the first step in a line of zooms with increasing zoom ratios, such as the 35-135, 35-200, 28-200 and the current 28-300.
There are several versions of the 35-105/3.5-4.5:
1. AIS - The original manual focus lens.
2. AF - Same optics as the AIS version, plastic barrel with narrow focus ring. Has rotary zoom ring instead of push-pull design.
3. AF new - Still same optic but with updated cosmetics, and returning to push-pull zoom action.
4. AF-D - This has completely different optics with IF focusing and a hybrid aspherical element. Similar appearance to the previous version. No macro mode in exchange for closer focusing to 0.85m through the entire zoom range (which is not really very close). Very short focus throw. This version might have better optics than the previous version, but was not in production for very long as zooms starting at 28mm were more popular.
-
Thanks Roland for the most useful summary of the 35-105.
The AFD obviously has qualities the other versions of this zoom lens lack. However, in visible light it is not a great performer, it only shines in IR. Thus it has uncanny similarity with the 43-86 AI/AIS.
-
Interesting thread, as it brings back memories of the 35-105 f3.5-4.5 AIS I used on my film bodies for some time. Only a couple of months though because I wasn't happy at all with the results on Velvia. In fact, I was so disappointed that I didn't look at wideangle to tele zooms again for quite a long time. The build quality, however, was pretty good, just as Bjørn said, and far better than that of most modern AF zooms.
Hermann
-
A few thoughts on the AF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF Nikkor:
This lens was made from 1994 to 2001 so it's mostly a film era lens. Even the dSLR(s) it was first used on did not have AF fine tuning available. I wonder how much of this lens' poor reputation is based on AF errors? l own one of these and quite like it. I find is suitable for use on a D800. I find the close focus distance of 0.85 meters fine for 105 and a bit long for 35mm but I'd rather live with that than have a lens compromised by a "macro" feature. Back in 2006 I think I read that an AF 35-70/2.8D owner had a lens stuck in macro mode and Nikon said the lens was obsolete and would not repair it. I'd rather have the AF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF as it is with its 0.85m closest focus than have the size and performance compromised by a macro feature.
The build quality of this lens from what I can see and feel is about the same as my AF 35-70/2.8D. The only thing I've noticed is the zoom control has molded hard plastic surface rather than a rubber grip. Frankly all AF Nikkors I own are a disappointing plastic compromise. They just don't stand up to comparison with my AI and AIS Nikkors. Many of the latest AF Nikkors I've handled such as the AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5G ED VR and AF-S 24-120/4.0G ED VR are even more disappointing. I bought an AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5G ED VR that was refurbished from Nikon USA and it came with VR that failed to function.
I've had two AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkors and one AF 28-70/3.5-4.5 with flaws. Though returned these lenses will probably find there way into the hands of new owners and may damage the reputation of their kind. Maybe they aren't built quite as well as they should be and should damage the reputation of there kind.
I feel lucky that I've got an AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D IF that I'm happy with as my AF 35-70/2.8 is probably a paper weight due to a decentering or alignment issue. I wonder if buying economy AF "kit" Nikkor lens is a matter of trial and error?
Dave
-
seems like there are 2 versions of this lens...a long one and a short one :o :o :o
-
Rick, this is an impressive lens...and a price tag. :D
-
Rick, this is an impressive lens...and a price tag. :D
i just overhauled this lens...surprisingly, it performed better than expected :o :o :o
i can say that it is better than the old 43-86, but with plenty of distortion. the focusing is not precise as well, there is a big gap in between 35mm and 105mm in terms of focusing distance of about 5-6mm on the focusing scale. for example at 105mm, infinity is spot on (infinity mark) but at 35mm infinity is at 10m (offset by 6-7mm). I may try to fix this later but it is 面倒くさい/troublesome since the lens is performing so-so.
-
Yet another interesting thread where one learns so much. Thank you all
I owned a decent version of the AFD model I bought Used in Zimbabwe where decent photographic gear sold for a premium. Optically it was fine lens and solidly built. Great results on Velvia, but I sold it at the beginning of the year. And now have settled on a 28-105 f3.5/4.5 AFD, which I find to be a superb medium range FX zoom, and this 28-105 also works well on my D7200.
2 aerial shots using a 35-105 AFD on a F90x using Velvia 100:
(https://sites.google.com/site/fpdcotterill/_/rsrc/1346248898083/photography/Buffalo_Marromeu1_July99.jpg)
(Adm.edit: Fixed your image links. They were malformed)
-
played with the macro mode of this lens...
the image below is the closest that I can get at 35mm :o :o :o
image is un-cropped. looks decent at f/8
I can see this lens' use for weddings if you are a cheap bast%*d ::)
-
cropped. details looks so-so :o :o :o
but not bad considering that this is just a bonus feature/gimmick ::)
-
crazy! did not expect a lens that costs less than a dollar to perform this good!!! :o :o :o
just look at the details!!! the photos of the old guy were shot at f/3.5 and from what I can see here at my monitor, it is tack sharp if you got it focused ::)
the bokeh is ugly as you can see but this is f/3.5 so...
The boat picture is f/5.6, looks good...
the sky picture is at f/11. saw a bit of fringing here and there but not a lot, this is f/11 anyway. details are acceptable so far. (corners look like scheize, by the way)
this lens works as advertised. it does not promise the world to you but it is rather useful. a very utilitarian lens for a journalist or backpacker who wants to travel light.
apart from the distortion, it works so much better than the 43-86 that it replaced. ::)
the biggest annoyance I have with this lens is the focus shift each time you change focal lengths. the scale is also accurate only at 105mm and is offset by a lot on the 35mm end. may people posted about this issue on the internet, i am sure that something can be done but I am too tired and unmotivated to fix this at the moment.
-
I have an MF one of these, which I used for a long time as my "walkaround" lens on Nikon F and F3. It's decently sharp most of the time, and a very convenient length, and the pseudo-macro feature is nice. At the same time, I find it an infuriating lens in other ways. I bought this long long ago along with an 80-200 /f4 AIS lens, of similar vintage. That latter lens is beautifully sharp, constant aperture, and nearly parfocal, and mine has a nice tight zoom ring. The 35-105 is variable aperture, variable focus, and though it's nice to have some kind of macro, it's ergonomically clumsy. Mine also has a loose zoom ring, so to use it for macro on a tripod I had to stick it with electrical tape.
Apparently, in the sample variation lottery, I came out all right. Mine is at least sharp enough for slides, but I confess I have not tried it on digital to see if it holds up.
-
Forgetting about the lens for just a moment, I do like the photos of the old guy - a Japanese wild west cowboy? The interaction with the two boys is nice, although I prefer the first one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My copy of the lens is both sharp and the zoom is reasonably well damped and not sloppy.
-
I have an MF one of these, which I used for a long time as my "walkaround" lens on Nikon F and F3. It's decently sharp most of the time, and a very convenient length, and the pseudo-macro feature is nice. At the same time, I find it an infuriating lens in other ways. I bought this long long ago along with an 80-200 /f4 AIS lens, of similar vintage. That latter lens is beautifully sharp, constant aperture, and nearly parfocal, and mine has a nice tight zoom ring. The 35-105 is variable aperture, variable focus, and though it's nice to have some kind of macro, it's ergonomically clumsy. Mine also has a loose zoom ring, so to use it for macro on a tripod I had to stick it with electrical tape.
Apparently, in the sample variation lottery, I came out all right. Mine is at least sharp enough for slides, but I confess I have not tried it on digital to see if it holds up.
Thanks Matthew!
I fixed the zoom creep on mine when I overhauled it :o :o :o
just used a thicker grease than usual and now it handles like a charm mechanically
the variable focus is what i hated. i read somewhere that this is not a true zoom lens so this probably explains that
-
Forgetting about the lens for just a moment, I do like the photos of the old guy - a Japanese wild west cowboy? The interaction with the two boys is nice, although I prefer the first one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My copy of the lens is both sharp and the zoom is reasonably well damped and not sloppy.
The old guy is a busker and he plays rockabilly and blues really well :o :o :o
these 2 oz kids are having the time of their lives.
-
Thanks Matthew!
I fixed the zoom creep on mine when I overhauled it :o :o :o
just used a thicker grease than usual and now it handles like a charm mechanically
the variable focus is what i hated. i read somewhere that this is not a true zoom lens so this probably explains that
I think Nikon billed it as a zoom, but strictly speaking, it's "varifocal" only. A proper zoom should be parfocal or at least nearly so. I am not sure how many makers made that distinction. The only one I know of off hand was Kiron.
Since my sample was clean inside and most of the time I was using it as a default carry-around lens, I never bothered to fix the zoom creep.
It always amused me a little that both the 35-105 and the 80-200 were made at about the same time by the same company. I always had the picture of Nikon sending little teams of engineers off to some lab with the order not to share anything.
Look at the button placement and menus between, say, a Nikon D3200 and a D7100, and it looks as if they still do it.
-
I've owned a 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 AI-s since 1984 and I never really noticed to what extent it was varifocal -- I suppose I should throw it on my D800 and take a look. I still keep it around for use on my Nikon FA when the fancy strikes. I'm pretty sure it was Nikon's first AI/AI-s variable aperture zoom, which is a bit of a pain in manual mode.
On introduction, it was an extremely popular lens, but even 1983 there was talk about a "bad batch" of these. Mine seems to been one of the better copies, but for me it was primarily a "walk-around" lens.
-
Yes, the AIS 35-105 was the first variable aperture zoom. Until then, even the cheap zooms like the series-E 36-72 and AI 43-86 had a constant aperture.
Nikon did make some early "semi-variable" aperture zooms in the form of the 85-250/4-4.5 and 200-600/9.5-10.5, but they were only variable wide open. In the case of the 85-250, once you stop down past f/4.5 it becomes a constant aperture zoom. It probably lost speed wide open towards the telephoto end due to the insufficient diameter of some internal elements. This was fixed in the 85-250/4 which is essentially the same lens optically with an additional a meniscus lens behind the front group. This focuses the light bundle more tightly so it passes through the middle and rear elements without being "stopped down" at wide apertures.
-
I've owned a 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 AI-s since 1984 and I never really noticed to what extent it was varifocal -- I suppose I should throw it on my D800 and take a look.
I gave it a go at a shooting distance of about 3 meters, and at that distance my copy (serial Number 21222xx) is parfocal to "green dot" tolerances. So I took a quick handheld snap at 105mm, zoomed out to 35mm, took another, did some pixel peeping, and concluded that while it's not quite parfocal, for handheld use with film it's close enough for most purposes.
-
That's interesting. On my D3200, the red (edit I meant yellow!) dot is very imprecise at wider angles, but using live view, mine, serial #1899354, at approximately 12 feet, varies by nearly four feet, with the distance scale closer to correct at the long end. I haven't tested it exhaustively to see how different distances affect it, but at that distance it's not even close to being usefully parfocal.