Gear Talk > Lens Talk

35-105 AIS mechanical masterpiece with great optics

(1/5) > >>

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page