NEW-Nikkor 135mm f/3.5

[richardHaw]

https://richardhaw.com/2020/11/14/repair-new-nikkor-135mm-f-3-5/

the last of its kind

its quite surprising how well it performed, easily the best 135/3.5 of the 4/3 variety.

[Airy]

Your testing procedure is as interesting (and accurate) as ever, by using various distances and backgrounds, and shooting real scenes rather than charts or brickwalls. Thanks for that. I just went through a dozen of these, and they corroborate my own experience well when I happen to already own the lens.

[Roland Vink]

The optics of the New-Nikkor 135/3.5 are not quite the same as the tick-mark 13.5cm/3.5 that you reviewed previously. The optics of the older lens were taken directly from the rangefinder lens and were used on f-mount lenses up to 1969. At that point the lens was upgraded, the new lens has a similar 4-element optical design but is clearly different:

OLD:


NEW:


The new Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 looks outwardly similar to the older version but can be distinguished by the following:
- slightly longer overall and much heavier
- 7 aperture blades (older version has 6 blades)
- scalloped aperture ring (older version has finely knurled grip)

There are slight differences in proportions but they are only obvious when you stand them side by side. That might explain the improved performance you saw.

I had an AI converted New-Nikkor 135/3.5 for a while and was impressed by its performance, reminded me of a longer, slower 105/2.5. I later sold it and got the older Nikkor-Q (new) version (I have a set of AI converted chrome "autos" from 28 - 200mm) but somehow I felt the New-Nikkor was better - better contrast, maybe the improved coatings?

[richardHaw]

The optics of the New-Nikkor 135/3.5 are not quite the same as the tick-mark 13.5cm/3.5 that you reviewed previously. The optics of the older lens were taken directly from the rangefinder lens and were used on f-mount lenses up to 1969. At that point the lens was upgraded, the new lens has a similar 4-element optical design but is clearly different:

OLD:


NEW:


The new Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 looks outwardly similar to the older version but can be distinguished by the following:
- slightly longer overall and much heavier
- 7 aperture blades (older version has 6 blades)
- scalloped aperture ring (older version has finely knurled grip)

There are slight differences in proportions but they are only obvious when you stand them side by side. That might explain the improved performance you saw.

I had an AI converted New-Nikkor 135/3.5 for a while and was impressed by its performance, reminded me of a longer, slower 105/2.5. I later sold it and got the older Nikkor-Q (new) version (I have a set of AI converted chrome "autos" from 28 - 200mm) but somehow I felt the New-Nikkor was better - better contrast, maybe the improved coatings?

oh, crap...you're right!

i looked at the optical design and the geometry is totally different!

I looked at my photos and it seemed that the changed did happen around 1979 when the 7-sided one came out

the later one has a bigger 3rd element!

[richardHaw]

ok, i edited it and the other articles.

didnt see this coming, the newer design has a flat rear for the 3rd element. maybe i should start documenting these with mongodb

[David H. Hartman]

Richard,

Thank you for a great review. I read the review section complete and I’ll come back to the repair section soon.

I wondering if you were using a lens hood when you reported on flare and ghost. I use a deep hood at all times on 105mm and 135mm lenses. I normally leave the lens in the forward position and caps them with a Tupperware #G tumbler cap for rapid access. The HN-8, HS-8 and HS-14 hoods fit and function well on the 105/2.5 and 135/3.5 lenses.

When I started in serious photography in 1970 the snap on hoods had chrome buttons. I believe these hoods were designed to jump off the lens and roll down the sidewalk whenever an attractive woman walked by. I much prefer the snap on hoods with a sliding plastic release as they tend to say put yet they can be removed quickly when using filters.

Dave

[richardHaw]

yes, they are quite flimsy but that may be by-design

for practical or social purposes

[Airy]

I do have one of those chrome-button snap-on hoods, namely the HS-4, designed for the 105/2.5, the 135/3.4 and the 105/4. I did never jump off the lens. Shall I infer that I never crossed any attractive woman on my photographic way?

[Hugh_3170]

They were not very secure - that is for sure.  Invariably the surfaces that they fell onto were always rough and the as a result hoods invariably got scratched just tp prove what devils they were! Arh....

...........................
 I believe these hoods were designed to jump off the lens and roll down the sidewalk whenever an attractive woman walked by.
..................................................................................

Dave