Looking for a zoom

[philipus]

Hello everybody

I'm looking for a manual focus zoom for my FM3A to have a little more reach above my 55 and 85 lenses esp. when I shoot in conference or party settings to be able to isolate subjects a bit (using faster/pushed film).

I've been eyeing the 70-210/4 Series E, the 75-150/3.5 Series E and the 80-200/4 as well as the 50-135/3.5. The faster speed of the two shorter lenses is attractive but what about performance?

I know that there is an 80-200/2.8 too, and also the apparently amazing 180 ED should I wish to zoom with my feet, but they seem to be in a higher price range.

Apologies if this has been posted before but I could not find any comparisons of the lenses.

Thanks a lot in advance
Philip

[Les Olson]

The only one of those I have is the 75-150/3.5; it is optically excellent.  The single zoom + focus ring takes a little getting used to, and many copies have very loose zoom rings that make using the lens tilted down practically impossible.  The E series were budget lenses, and the build quality was less than other lenses of the same vintage - but it is quite high by today's standards.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

While the 70-210/4 E Nikon is a pretty decent zoom, its performance lags behind that of the 75-150/3.5 E. In part this is due to the lower image contrast of the former. Moreover it is significantly more bulky but has the advantage of its zooming and focusing collar not being so loose as often seen with the 75-150.

The 50-135/3.5 Nikkor AiS improves a notch or two on the humble 75-150 but is heavier and more expensive as well. The last two points apply to the 80-200/4 also, which however is a quite nice performing design and the longer end adds a useful extension to your present lenses. These two cope well with a 6T close-up attachment to make them handy for the occasional close-ups too.

Whichever lens you end up with, do ensure it is used with the proper longest possible lens hood all the time.

[Matthew Currie]

I've had the 80-200/4 for many years and always found it to be surprisingly good.  It's a bit heavy, but it's decent to handle, focuses fairly close and it's good and sharp.  Mine, surprisingly it seems, has never developed a loose zoom either.  I also got the 75-150 E for super cheap, and it's nice, but not as robustly made.  Mine has a very loose zoom, not surprisingly, but a little tape makes it more useable if you don't mind the appearance.

I found that the 80-200 worked pretty decently with a tele extender too, but not all extenders will fit.

[pluton]

I have recent experience with the 80-200/4 and the 50-135/3.5.  Both are good. My copy of the 50-135/3.5 gives an impression of being slightly more contrasty. F/3.5 seems to be easier to focus than the 80-200/4 at f/4 in the D800 finder.  After having used a modern 70-200/2.8, these lenses don't seem heavy at all.
The 80-200/2.8 AiS is a large and genuinely rare lens of high reputation;  KEH had one for sale once (that I have noticed) in the last 10 years.

[David H. Hartman]

I've been eyeing the 70-210/4 Series E, the 75-150/3.5 Series E and the 80-200/4 as well as the 50-135/3.5. The faster speed of the two shorter lenses is attractive but what about performance?

I know that there is an 80-200/2.8 too, and also the apparently amazing 180 ED should I wish to zoom with my feet, but they seem to be in a higher price range.

1) I've never used the 70-210/4 Series E so I can't comment.

2) 75-150/3.5 Series E is a wonderful lens. According to reviews I've read long ago it's in there with prime lenses like the 105/2.5. As I recall the reviews were in Modern Photography magazine. Edge performance wasn't as good as the 105/2.5 AI/AIS which is not surprising. I never tested mine formally 75-150/3.5 Series E but I like the performance. The zoom got loose and I shimmed the felt that dampens the zoom and the repair has held up for decades.

3) The 80-200/4.0 AIS produces great images but the focus throw is a very long 260 degrees according to Roland's site. This makes it hard to focus rapidly particularly if the subject is moving towards you. With more time to focus, focus can be very precise.

4) The 50-135/3.5 has a good reputation. I've never owned one. I'm sure others will comment. It has a very convenient zoom range. I think more useful than 75-150mm.

5) The 180/2.8 ED AIS is in my opinion in there with the 85/1.4 AIS, 105/2.5 AI/AIS and 135/2.8 AI/AIS. It's a must have lens for me. These are my short telephoto picks in the AI and AIS era lenses.

Best,

Dave Hartman

Here is an excellent group of short reviews. Look for "Lenses" on the left...

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

This was my gold standard but the site is not updated anymore. I still reference it regarding the lenses covered from time to time.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

These days, people ask me directly, Dave.

[David H. Hartman]

Yes but it's still a very convenient reference.

I would have sold or donated my 20/3.5 AI and I bought a K-Ring set and 28/2.0 AIS as a direct result of those reviews. I'm sure I own other lenses as a result.

Dave

[philipus]

Just a quick note to say thank you very much for sharing your experiences. I will do some further thinking. I'm generally in favour of prime lenses and don't mind switching lenses. But it's convenient to have a zoom sometimes.

br
Philip

[rosko]

In the range mentioned above, I use a old and reliable Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.5.

Optically excellent, no that fast, but who bothers with now high ISO bodies ?

You can find it at ridiculous low price.

And as Bjørn suggested already, there is still the possibility to use an additional close-up lens.

Good search, Francis.

[paul_k]

In the range mentioned above, I use a old and reliable Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.5.

Optically excellent, no that fast, but who bothers with now high ISO bodies ?

You can find it at ridiculous low price.

And as Bjørn suggested already, there is still the possibility to use an additional close-up lens.

Good search, Francis.

That was the first 'serious' zoom I bought when I started using Nikon in 1979 (also had a 3.5/43-86 to cover the short range)
Was my 'bread and butter' workhorse lens until I finally was (financially) able to upgrade to a 2.8/80-200 AF somewhere around I think 1988

Even shot catwalk with it, quite challenging as due to max f4.5, under bad lighting (and things/lighting rarely if ever were/was as sophisticated as the nowadays shows) the center split screen part of my A type viewing screen basically blacked out.
And all you had left to help focus with was the microprism doughnut surrounding it, a hopefully sharp eye, and well developed eye-hand reflex.
But you simply had to do the job with the tools (then) available

That max f4.5 also already made it a challenge to shoot with on my favorite 'standard ' film Tri-X, usually used up to max ISO 800/30DIN despite the then inevitable grain
But that became even more of an issue when shooting color on Kodak EPY , officially rated at ISO 64, and for my purposes pushed to ISO 125 despite the heavy magenta cast it then got

Couple of years ago got a beat up cheap one again just for the fun of it, using it on a much higher ISO capable DF is a lot easier nowadays

[Gil Aegerter]

I would vote for the 75-150mm, 80-200mm or 50-135mm. I've had a couple of the 70-210mm Series E and both were soft. If you find a good well-damped version of the 75-150, it would be a good light companion to your FM3a. But the other lenses also produce excellent results.

[Roland Vink]

The 75-150 was one of my favourite lenses for my FM3a. Sharpness is good and background rendition is generally pleasing. It covers a very useful medium telephoto range, perfect for portraiture, landscapes and general photography. The long end of 150mm is about as long as I can comfortably hand-hold and frame accurately. Going up to 200mm I find requires a faster shutter speed to avoid camera shake, and some bracing to enable accurate focusing, otherwise the image starts to wander in the viewfinder so that framing may be a little out even if the shutter speed is faster enough to avoid camera shake. It has a reasonably fast and constant f/3.5 aperture - only a little over 1/2 a stop slower than the big f/2.8 zooms - especially useful if you are shooting film. It focuses usefully close down to 1m at all focal lengths without any special macro modes, giving 1:5 magnifications. It performs well with the No 3T or 4T closeup filter turning it into a macro zoom (without infinity focus). The 52mm filter size is also handy since it matches the filters of most AIS primes. Lastly, it is nice and compact so does not take up too much space in your bag.

[F2F3F6]

In year 2000, I bought a 3,5/75-150 Series E (chromring model 2) for my FM2 and traveled with it ... a real pleasure : light, compact, 52mm filters, enough speed, very cheap (75€) why ask for more ?
Example a 6 days walk in Marokko Anti-Atlas with it and a 2,8/28Ais, 2 lenses A CPL and a Nikon F90x only and 300 slides produced...
Yes it's indeed a good lens, not an excellent lens, but a capable performer and if you're looking for light and cheap, but also good quality, it's a first class candidate.

If you want more reach, the 4/80-200 is also very good (a bit better and professional built) but also bigger and heavier...800 vs 500g)

[thirtyfivemill]

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

This was my gold standard but the site is not updated anymore. I still reference it regarding the lenses covered from time to time.

LOL! That's Bjorn's site, Dave. 

I have to say, I've also used it since the 90s and the research of every lens I've ever purchased has always started there. Great to now have the millennium live version right here now!!