1001 Nights #71

[chambeshi]

35-105mm f/3.5-4.5AIS by Haru Sato

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0071/index.htm

[Matthew Currie]

Interesting.  This is one of those lenses I love to rag on even though I used mine a lot.  Optically I thought it pretty decent, and the 35-105 range was nice for film, an ideal walking about lens....except that I always thought it an ergonomic mess.  The push pull zoom was, like so many, loose, and because it's nowhere near parfocal, one has to hold on tight to keep it from creeping out of focus.  The pseudo-macro setting is clumsy too, and because of the zoom creep it's essentially unusable on a tripod unless you carry a roll of tape.  As I think I've mentioned before here, I bought mine at the same time as I got the 80-200 F4 AIS, and was always a little amused that that wonderfully sharp, constant-aperture, non-creeping, close focusing, parfocal zoom could have been made by the same company.

e.t.a...on the other hand, the article cited suggests that the lens is far better in the center 70 percent or so than at the edges, so perhaps I'll have to try it on DX. 

[Roland Vink]

The article mentions it has DNA from the older 43-86/3.5 zoom - outwardly they do look similar. The 35-105 improves on the 43-86mm by extending the zoom range in both directions, at the expense of the constant aperture. The close focus limit is the same, but you also get macro mode which is like a secondary focus helix or built-in extension tube. Extension has more effect with shorter focal lengths, so the maximum magnification is at 35mm, not at 105mm where it would be more useful.

This lens had a reputation for sample variation, I guess good samples performed quite well. I never used one, preferring primes. The AF-D version uses a completely different optical design with IF focusing, it focuses closer in the normal range but loses the macro mode.

[Birna Rørslett]

Whilst the optical design might be fine, the 35-105 must have had mechanical issues as most of them I tried so far were badly lacking in sharpness or centering of the elements.

[Matthew Currie]

Mine is decently sharp stopped down a bit, though pretty soft at the edges wide open.  But it seems to be centered.  On film, hand held, I found it adequate, and for some years it was the default lens for walking around.  I have read many times that this lens had a lot of sample variation, but I seem to have gotten lucky.