I bought a new one in 2007 from B&H, long after they were discontinued. They must have found some old stock that had been lying forgotten in a warehouse somewhere. They late production lenses, the serial number on mine is the highest I have seen so far.
I'm not sure why Nikon made this lens as it's not really smaller than the AIS 135/2.8 or even the 135/3.5, although it is a bit lighter. If I were looking for a cheap 135mm lens I'd go for a 135/3.5 - it's a bit slower but perfectly good even wide open, has better coatings and focuses closer.
I'm not sure if the series-E primes are single coated, but the coatings are definitely simpler and less effective than the multi-layer NIC coating used on AI and AIS lenses. The zooms are multicoated, but even these are not quite as good as the coatings on the AI and AIS versions. It's a shame Nikon never made the 75-150 as a "Nikkor" - it's a good lens but if they had used better glass and coatings it would have been outstanding.
it may be the amount of coated surfaces
some are probably naked.
yes, it's actually smaller but not by much.
the only reason i could think of is they probably got this data from surveys, theyre quite popular here.
i hate answering surveys.
OR
this could be a use for recycling failed nikkor designs...who knows.
the 75-150mm is a nice lens, not the best but it performs eerily-close to a real Nikkor
the series-e prime lenses aren't really that bad, i think many of them are quite good but not to the extent that the internet had made them out to be. think about the 35/2.8e, 50/1.8e, 100/2.8e and this one. hailed as "great lenses" for a "cheap price". that may be true in 2007 but not now. you could definitely buy a nikkor for less than what these things are selling. what annoys me the most is people kept on repeating this mantra so recent articles written will just echo what was said of these 15 years ago, perpetuating the cycle.
