PN11 with Nikon 135mm f/3.5 AI

[elsid]

Thank you Frank. I agree with you. 2313 is the one I, personally, like from the set.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

(I also concede that English can be a most confusing language where a word can have more than one meaning - in this instance one meaning is a desireable one and the other has a somewhat tarnished meaning IMHO.  Please forgive me, but I hate the word because of this.)

Just underlines the fact that the language is not context-free. Ambiguity means sender and receiver both need to have a commonality in order to understand the implied message.

If there is any consolation, there are languages far worse (or more sophisticated?) than English in this regard.

Enough swerving off the main thread. I hope Elsid's photos make more people inquisitive as to what gems can be dug out from older lenses of Nikkor or other brands. The inexpensive and ubiquitous 100 mm f/2.8 Nikon SE is an obvious candidate to check out. Several other lenses in the SE line-up deserve more attention as well. The 75-150 SE has already a devoted following. The 36-72/3.5 SE has a potential for fine imagery either for ordinary shooting or reversed in combination with a 4T for great close-ups. and so on.

[Akira]

(I also concede that English can be a most confusing language where a word can have more than one meaning - in this instance one meaning is a desireable one and the other has a somewhat tarnished meaning IMHO.  Please forgive me, but I hate the word because of this.)

English is not alone in this regard.  I would rather cherish the fact that a word can have more than one meaning.  That's why there is room for puns!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Couldn't agree more, Akira. My mother tongues have plenty of opportunities for wordplays and word smiths.

But we need to return on topic as soon as possible ...

[Hugh_3170]

Sorry about straying off topic, but I have a soft spot for the 135mm f/3.5.............

On topic again, there are a number of Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 lenses out there that won't break the bank and which turn in very competent performances.  They are worthy of a look and would nicely complement a kit of primes.

[jhinkey]

My 135/3.5 Ais is amazingly sharp close up, including as close as 1:4 and the like.

I haven't really used my 135/3.5 up close very much, but before I got the stellar 135/3.4 Telyt the AIS Nikkor was my "long" tele on my hikes and was indeed amazingly sharp at infinity on my D800 or A7RII.  It's downfall for me was the lower contrast and dislike for bright objects in the scene (like the sun at sunrise or set) due to lens flare.  I did like it for the fact that it was typically sharp enough over most of the image when shot wide open at infinity.

Truly one of the un-sung Nikkors.   I'll have to dig up some examples from the past couple of years out in the mountains when my light weight kit consisted of the 16/3.5, 45/2.8P, and 135/3.5.

[Hugh_3170]

Agreed - this is a very compact lens that works well and could easily pass for a 50mm lens on size.  Makes a nice stable mate to the 135mm f/3.5.

It must have one of the thickest lens mounts of any Nikon or Nikkor lens at the spot where you add a CPU contact block  -  it is about 2mm and needs a lot of metal to be removed in order to get it down to the desired 0.8mm!  Unlike some AiS lenses, there is otherwise plenty of space for the PCB, so it is easy to chip once the mount has been thinned.

Edit:

My memory has really failed me here.  Thanks to Bjørn and Roland for raising the alarm bells here.

I have just checked and the lens mounts on both the E Series (Chrome ring trim) for the 100mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/2.8 lenses have an unmachined lens mount thicknesses of around 1.22mm.

That of my 135mm f/3.5 Ai is 1.00mm.  I am now quite unsure of which lens had the 2mm thichness - will update this post in due course.  I remember at the time I measured it that it was unusual.  Old age! 

On a more positive note, all three lenses have plenty of internal space to facilitate lens chipping with short contact block CPUs. 

........................

The inexpensive and ubiquitous 100 mm f/2.8 Nikon SE is an obvious candidate to check out.

.......................................

[Roland Vink]

I feel the 135mm Nikors all tend to be very sharp over the whole frame.

They should be - slow, medium telephoto primes are the easiest lenses to design so there is no excuse for a bad lens! The angle of view is small so we avoid the problems with wide angle lenses, the focal length is long enough that it is easy to design for clearing the mirror-box, but not long enough that expensive special glasses are needed to control CA. Overall the lens is still compact and easy to handle.

The series-E 100/2.8 and 135/2.8 have almost identical 4-element optical designs. The AI/AIS 135/2.8 is also very similar but one of the lenses is a doublet so it is a 5/4 element design.

The SE 100/2.8 is very compact - the smallest telephoto prime that Nikon have made (even smaller than the 85/2), and performance is not far short of the 105/2.5, although the latter has better coatings and nicer bokeh. The 100 serves very well in an ultra-light travel kit. The SE 135/2.8 performs well too but suffers a bit from the long 1.5m minimum focus distance - I prefer the AI 135/3.5 or AIS 135/2.8 their better build and closer focusing, and they are only marginally bigger and heavier.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It must have one of the thickest lens mounts of any Nikon or Nikkor lens at the spot where you add a CPU contact block  -  it is about 2mm and needs a lot of metal to be removed in order to get it down to the desired 0.8mm!  Unlike some AiS lenses, there is otherwise plenty of space for the PCB, so it is easy to chip once the mount has been thinned.

Hugh - what version of the 100 SE do you have? I cannot recall that problem with my sample (first generation, no chrome ring).

[Roland Vink]

I think Hugh was referring to the AI 135/3.5 - the rim around the rear element is very thick. The same on the SE 100 is much thinner (both versions)

[Hugh_3170]

My memory has really failed me here.  Thanks to Bjørn and Roland for raising the alarm bells.

I have just checked and the lens mounts on both the E Series (Chrome ring trim) for the 100mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/2.8 lenses have an unmachined lens mount thicknesses of around 1.22mm.

That of my 135mm f/3.5 Ai is 1.00mm.  I am now quite unsure of which lens had the 2mm thichness - will update this post in due course.  I remember at the time I measured it that it was unusual.  Old age! 

On a more positive note, all three lenses have plenty of internal space to facilitate lens chipping with short contact block CPUs. 

[Roland Vink]

I assume by "lens mount thickness" you are referring to the thickness of the matte black protectors around the rear element - the part which gets machined away when a CPU block is installed. It is quite thick on some lenses:
AI 135/3.5:


AI 85/2:

[Hugh_3170]

Roland, what you call the matt black protectors around the rear lens element, I call rear stray light baffles, although I do acknowledge their dual role of helping to protect the rear lens elements of those lenses whose rear most lens elements are set well back into the camera body, e.g. fast primes of <85mm focal length.  (Telephoto and micro Nikkors usually have their rear lens elements well inside the lens body.

No, what I am referring to is the wall thickness of the bayonet mount itself.  For metal bayonet mounts, these mounts usually consist of hard chrome plated brass.  Ideally the wall thickness of of the bayonet mount should be no more than 0.8mm where the contact block is screwed down.  Lenses (typically most Ai and AiS and similar modern MF lenses) whose mounts have thick walls need the mount wall to be thinned down by carefully milling or filing the wall under where the contact block is fitted.

The attached image is a NOS mount from the 17-35mm AFS lens which has a wide 10-pin contact block fitted.  Its mount has had its wall thickness reduced for the contact block as well in the region where the lens aperture lever is situated.

[Roland Vink]

Hugh, thanks for the explanation.