35-105 AIS mechanical masterpiece with great optics

[Peter_S]

Hi All
I saw some mixed reviews of this lens and could now get one for 20 bucks in unused condition.
What a nice mechanical masterpiece, unbelievable what quality Nikon produced during the AIS time.
I made a quick test for the optics and compared it to very good primes in this range, and the next surprise:
wide open a bit spherical aberration (?), but sharp and contrasty. Stopped down f8 on pair with my primes, wow.

The only drawback is the near limit of 1.4m, but ok.

What's your experience, as I said, reviews are mixed....

[BEZ]

I tried three of the AF-D version for use with my infrared camera, but all mine were relatively poor performers.

You seem to have had more luck with the AIS model, and have been very lucky to find a mint lens for $20.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have yet to come across one of the AIS 35-105 units with decent performance. Apparently there is a lot of sample variation for this model. For IR it just gives an ugly hot spot so is useless.

The story with the AFD 35-105 is in contrast entirely different. I have used it on different IR cameras with great success. The negative experiences BEZ report might indicate also this version has a variable quality.

[Matthew Currie]

On film mine was decently sharp, and the little I've bothered to try it on digital it's seemed not bad.  But I greatly disliked its ergonomics.  The 35 mm.-only pseudo-macro, the variable aperture and varifocal zoom, the loose barrel, etc.  It's nice and hefty, for sure, and a very handy FX range, but ugh, it's a clumsy and ugly cuss. 

I may be prejudiced, because I bought mine used at the same time as the AIS 80-200 F4, using both originally on a Nikon F.  The 80-200 was, and still is, exceptionally good in just about every way the other isn't.  It always surprised me that two more or less complementary zooms should come from the same company at the same time and be so different.

[David H. Hartman]

I have no experience with this lens but I note the "macro" feature and feel they are a complication of the design and have a potential to introduce performance problems. If one wants to focus closer with such a lens use dual element close up attachment. For close-up and macro use a Micro-Nikkor or other brand of similar lens. Did I mention I don't like "macro" features with buttons to push and rings to turn??

I have two good samples of the AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkor. The close focus isn't so good at 35mm, fine at 105mm. That's not what I bought the lens for. I have at least nine Micro-Nikkors from 55mm to 200mm. The AF-D version's charm is it's small and discreet with decent performance wide open and very nice at f/5.6 to f/8.0.

Resent offerings from Nikon are raising the bar for optical performance to meet 36MP cameras and I presume higher. It's too much to ask this humble lens to measure up to these new lenses. None of them are as small and discreet as the AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D and AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkors. Both of these have a hybrid aspheric element up their sleeve. At less than $100.00 USD for these lenses they are worth considering for walk-a-round lenses even on a Nikon D800.

Dave Hartman who loves the build quality of the old manual focus Nikkors.

I had one bad sample of the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D, centering or alignment problems; that's 1 in 3 defective lenses.

[David H. Hartman]

One more thought here. I never paid much attention to variable maximum apertures Nikkor lenses prior to the AF 70-180/4.5-5.6D ED Micro-Nikkor. The reason is I used a hand held light meter a lot with film. Cameras like the Nikon D300s and D800 keep the aperture constant once away from maximum aperture so I don't have a constantly varying aperture to worry about as I zoom. I never considered the AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D in it's day. I used mostly manual focus Nikkors all with fixed maximum apertures with the F4s, F5 and D2H.

Dave

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Most variable-aperture Nikkor zooms, up to more recent times, range only +- 1/3 EV at their maximum. Even with a hand-held external meter that's easy to accommodate.

[Roland Vink]

[...] But I greatly disliked its ergonomics.  The 35 mm.-only pseudo-macro, the variable aperture and varifocal zoom, the loose barrel, etc. 

The macro mode of this lens operates at all focal lengths - turning the macro ring turns a secondary helicoid which acts as a built-in extension tube. Extension has proportionally greater effect at shorter focal lengths, so the macro mode is most effective at the 35mm zoom setting, less so at the 105mm setting. Similar macro modes are found on the AIS 28-85 and 35-200 zooms.

[Matthew Currie]

I'm probably mixing this one up with some other manual lens that went into macro only at one end.  I still don't care much for the ergonomics, but I'll concede on that one at least.

[richardHaw]

I got one for $0.8c 

I overhauled it and not expecting a lot really but the lens performed better than expected. it is SHARP.

distortion? there are plenty of it I am sure.

I hate the focusing of this since it's different on both ends.

[Matthew Currie]

I just threw mine on the D7100 to remind myself of what it felt like, which also reminds me of why I found it so annoying.  Macro is nearly impossible with the loose zoom ring, and it's hard to hold the whole rig together to keep a shot in focus.  Back when I was using it a lot, I carried a roll of tape for tripod and macro use.  But it's good and sharp if you can make it behave for long enough, and was always a decent walking-around lens.  If you look at the thing objectively, it's probably not so bad, but it just always rubbed me the wrong way.  At about the same time I had the 80-200AIS, and my wife had the 28-105AFD, so it was obvious that Nikon could do a heck of a lot better than this.

But I suppose I should stop razzing this lens so hard.  I took a lot of pictures with it.

[BEZ]

The story with the AFD 35-105 is in contrast entirely different. I have used it on different IR cameras with great success. The negative experiences BEZ report might indicate also this version has a variable quality.

Yes I bought the lens based on your recommendation, and that is why I persevered buying two further copies. It seems I was very unlucky as they all were mediocre. But they were free from hotspots at all apertures.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I'm sorry for your disappointments. Perhaps I was very lucky with my AFD 35-105?

Anyway, the lens is excellent for the purposes for which I mainly use it, viz. false-colour and 'true' IR.

A few examples, not very pictorial though. Nikon D200 and Fuji S3Pro, both cameras modified.

[BEZ]

Your series of images featuring the mysterious yellow chair are among my favourites Bjørn.

Truly inspiring!

[benveniste]

I tried three of the AF-D version for use with my infrared camera, but all mine were relatively poor performers.

This is one of the few lenses where Nikon changed the optical formula for the "D" version.  But unlike the 28mm f/2.8 AF, in this case I don't feel it was for the better.