Nikon 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AI-s

[richardHaw]

cropped. details looks so-so
but not bad considering that this is just a bonus feature/gimmick

[richardHaw]

crazy! did not expect a lens that costs less than a dollar to perform this good!!!

just look at the details!!! the photos of the old guy were shot at f/3.5 and from what I can see here at my monitor, it is tack sharp if you got it focused
the bokeh is ugly as you can see but this is f/3.5 so...

The boat picture is f/5.6, looks good...

the sky picture is at f/11. saw a bit of fringing here and there but not a lot, this is f/11 anyway. details are acceptable so far. (corners look like scheize, by the way)

this lens works as advertised. it does not promise the world to you but it is rather useful. a very utilitarian lens for a journalist or backpacker who wants to travel light.
apart from the distortion, it works so much better than the 43-86 that it replaced.

the biggest annoyance I have with this lens is the focus shift each time you change focal lengths. the scale is also accurate only at 105mm and is offset by a lot on the 35mm end. may people posted about this issue on the internet, i am sure that something can be done but I am too tired and unmotivated to fix this at the moment.

[Matthew Currie]

I have an MF one of these, which I used for a long time as my "walkaround" lens on Nikon F and F3.  It's decently sharp most of the time, and a very convenient length, and the pseudo-macro feature is nice.  At the same time, I find it an infuriating lens in other ways.  I bought this long long ago along with an 80-200 /f4 AIS lens, of similar vintage.  That latter lens is beautifully sharp, constant aperture, and nearly parfocal, and mine has a nice tight zoom ring.  The 35-105 is variable aperture, variable focus, and though it's nice to have some kind of macro, it's ergonomically clumsy.  Mine also has a loose zoom ring, so to use it for macro on a tripod I had to stick it with electrical tape.

Apparently, in the sample variation lottery, I came out all right.  Mine is at least sharp enough for slides, but I confess I have not tried it on digital to see if it holds up.

[Hugh_3170]

Forgetting about the lens for just a moment, I do like the photos of the old guy - a Japanese wild west cowboy?  The interaction with the two boys is nice, although I prefer the first one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

My copy of the lens is both sharp and the zoom is reasonably well damped and not sloppy.

[richardHaw]

I have an MF one of these, which I used for a long time as my "walkaround" lens on Nikon F and F3.  It's decently sharp most of the time, and a very convenient length, and the pseudo-macro feature is nice.  At the same time, I find it an infuriating lens in other ways.  I bought this long long ago along with an 80-200 /f4 AIS lens, of similar vintage.  That latter lens is beautifully sharp, constant aperture, and nearly parfocal, and mine has a nice tight zoom ring.  The 35-105 is variable aperture, variable focus, and though it's nice to have some kind of macro, it's ergonomically clumsy.  Mine also has a loose zoom ring, so to use it for macro on a tripod I had to stick it with electrical tape.

Apparently, in the sample variation lottery, I came out all right.  Mine is at least sharp enough for slides, but I confess I have not tried it on digital to see if it holds up.

Thanks Matthew!

I fixed the zoom creep on mine when I overhauled it 
just used a thicker grease than usual and now it handles like a charm mechanically
the variable focus is what i hated. i read somewhere that this is not a true zoom lens so this probably explains that

[richardHaw]

Forgetting about the lens for just a moment, I do like the photos of the old guy - a Japanese wild west cowboy?  The interaction with the two boys is nice, although I prefer the first one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

My copy of the lens is both sharp and the zoom is reasonably well damped and not sloppy.

The old guy is a busker and he plays rockabilly and blues really well
these 2 oz kids are having the time of their lives.

[Matthew Currie]

Thanks Matthew!

I fixed the zoom creep on mine when I overhauled it 
just used a thicker grease than usual and now it handles like a charm mechanically
the variable focus is what i hated. i read somewhere that this is not a true zoom lens so this probably explains that

I think Nikon billed it as a zoom, but strictly speaking, it's "varifocal" only.  A proper zoom should be parfocal or at least nearly so.  I am not sure how many makers made that distinction.  The only one I know of off hand was Kiron. 

Since my sample was clean inside and most of the time I was using it as a default carry-around lens, I never bothered to fix the zoom creep. 

It always amused me a little that both the 35-105 and the 80-200 were made at about the same time by the same company.  I always had the picture of Nikon sending little teams of engineers off to some lab with the order not to share anything.

Look at the button placement and menus between, say, a Nikon D3200 and a D7100, and it looks as if they still do it.

[benveniste]

I've owned a 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 AI-s since 1984 and I never really noticed to what extent it was varifocal -- I suppose I should throw it on my D800 and take a look.  I still keep it around for use on my Nikon FA when the fancy strikes.  I'm pretty sure it was Nikon's first AI/AI-s variable aperture zoom, which is a bit of a pain in manual mode.

On introduction, it was an extremely popular lens, but even 1983 there was talk about a "bad batch" of these.  Mine seems to been one of the better copies, but for me it was primarily a "walk-around" lens.

[Roland Vink]

Yes, the AIS 35-105 was the first variable aperture zoom. Until then, even the cheap zooms like the series-E 36-72 and AI 43-86 had a constant aperture.

Nikon did make some early "semi-variable" aperture zooms in the form of the 85-250/4-4.5 and 200-600/9.5-10.5, but they were only variable wide open. In the case of the 85-250, once you stop down past f/4.5 it becomes a constant aperture zoom. It probably lost speed wide open towards the telephoto end due to the insufficient diameter of some internal elements. This was fixed in the 85-250/4 which is essentially the same lens optically with an additional a meniscus lens behind the front group. This focuses the light bundle more tightly so it passes through the middle and rear elements without being "stopped down" at wide apertures.

[benveniste]

I've owned a 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 AI-s since 1984 and I never really noticed to what extent it was varifocal -- I suppose I should throw it on my D800 and take a look.

I gave it a go at a shooting distance of about 3 meters, and at that distance my copy (serial Number 21222xx) is parfocal to "green dot" tolerances.  So I took a quick handheld snap at 105mm, zoomed out to 35mm, took another, did some pixel peeping, and concluded that while it's not quite parfocal, for handheld use with film it's close enough for most purposes.

[Matthew Currie]

That's interesting.  On my D3200, the red (edit I meant yellow!) dot is very imprecise at wider angles, but using live view, mine,  serial #1899354, at approximately 12 feet, varies by nearly four feet, with the distance scale closer to correct at the long end.  I haven't tested it exhaustively to see how different distances affect it, but at that distance it's not even close to being usefully parfocal.