AF Nikkor 35-135 3.5-4.5 Macro

[stenrasmussen]

Anyone with thoughts/experience regarding this one?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Absolute. I own the AF and its manual predecessor. No 'macro' of course, just advertising blurb, but you already should be aware of that.

AF is slow, but will do in a pinch if you aren't in a hurry. Optically this is an average performer and lacks the 'bite' of the better zoom lenses. It feels solid and carries some heft though, so not as plasticky as many other cheaper zooms.

While it is just an average or barely so in visible light, it does very well in IR and is unusual as  zoom design go by not showing any IR hotspot. The manual 35-135 behaves in a similar manner and is glued to my Fuji S3 UVIR for IR false-colour emulation photography.

[Roland Vink]

Be aware there are two optical versions of the 35-135:

The first has 15/14 elements/groups, appearing in the AIS and early AF version with plastic focus ring and focus scale behind a window. These focus to 1.5m which is typical for zooms of this era. There is a macro mode down to 0.4m which engages from the 135mm setting, giving 1:3.8 magnification - not real macro but useful for casual closeups. The macro mode causes significant focal length shortening as the field of view widens rapidly when moving through the macro range.

The second has 15/12 elements/groups, found in the "new" AF version, distinguished by the push-pull zoom action and rubber focus grip. This lens focuses to 1.5m (same as previous version) with macro mode to 0.3m, this time engaged from the 35mm setting, giving 1:3.5 magnification.

Which version do you have?

I don't know how the two versions compare in performance, although I prefer the macro mode at the longer end as it gives more working distance.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Roland: I have the last AF version with push-pull operation and extended close focusing at 35 mm. The manual version has its 'macro' setting at 135 mm.

Both lenses share the optical signature (visible & IR) so there is a commonality at work for these consumer optics.

[stenrasmussen]

I am tempted to get the lens for the modest price of 85USD...or should I not be bothered..?
I could get a few bottles of very nice red instead 😁

[Roland Vink]

I have never seen the optical schema for the new AF lens so can't say how much the new and old versions have in common.
Nikon did not print optical schemas on manuals or brochures of early AF lenses, so there is a gap in my knowledge here - I have to trust the specifications listed in the brochures are correct.

Is it worth trying? Hard to say. It's so cheap it might be worth giving it a go. If you don't like it, sell for the same and put the proceeds towards some red

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Drop the booze and get 35-135.... I know you are into IR, Sten, so this lens should be an ideal companion for your IR work.

As the reputation of the 35-135 all models is generally not stellar, this helps keep prices down at the very least.

[FredCrowBear]

At my years, I would say that a 'new' lens would probably bring me more fun that a few bottles of red, even if the lens was only an average performer. 
A few years ago, this would not have been the case.