35-105 AIS mechanical masterpiece with great optics

[Bill Mellen]

I bought a used 35-105 AIS along with a used F3 in 1983. 

The dealer swore that the zoom was a really good lens.  Of course he was a quite a salesman :

I never really liked the lens and gave it very little use.  Sold it for next to nothing about 2 years ago after rediscovering it in my closet.  Hopefully it found a nice home.

[David H. Hartman]

I suggest ignoring the "macro" mode of most zoom lenses. I read an account many years ago about an AF 35-70/2.8D Nikkor that got stuck in macro mode. This was before 2006 so it was about a decade ago or perhaps more. Nikon USA at that time would not repair the lens saying it was obsolete. I don't know how many Nikkor zooms have the potential to get stuck in macro mode. I suggest instead carrying a 55/3.5 AI, 55/2.8 AIS or one of the AF 60/2.8(D/G) Micro Nikkors. The old manual focus ones are quite small. I've never held an AF-S 60/2.8G ED but it doesn't see from specs to be too large.

I don't evaluate the macro mode of Nikkor zoom lenses. That's my 2 cents...

Dave Hartman

[Bjørn Rørslett]

While I won't deny the 'Macro' feature of zoom lenses more is a figment of the imagination of a marketing department it should not be entirely dismissed either.

In a pinch, the 'macro' settings provided by AFD 35-70/2.8, AFD 35-105/3.5-4.5, AIS/AFD 35-135/3.5-4.5, or 50-135/3.5 , have brought me the extra "mile" required to get the shot I wanted. Of course image sharpness in particular towards the corners will be no match for a real Micro-Nikkor, but having the picture is far better than missing it completely.

[Matthew Currie]

I'd add to the above that the usefulness of a macro or pseudo macro depends a good deal on what you're after.  While it's true that nothing but a true macro macro will do on some subjects, if you're chasing bugs and flower stamens and whatnot, the falloff at the edges often is of no importance, since those edges are far out of the depth of field anyway.  Similarly, linear distortion which might be a killer if you're doing fabric or the like is unlikely to be noticeable when the shapes are irregular anyway.  I'm always happy to have close focusing of some sort available, even if it's not the best.   

[jhinkey]

My long-since-sold 35-105 was OK at 12MP on FX, but if you wanted great IQ off into the borders/edges/corners it starts to fall down.
On a 36 or 42.5 MP body - it's way past its prime.

That being said, the lens used is one of many variables that goes into making a great image.  Some photographers can make great images using the bottom of a beer bottle for a lens.

[Matthew Currie]

I get targeted ads from KEH. com (gee, I wonder why?) and on another site I just got an ad for a bargain-grade one of these lenses for $35, and an excellent for $65.  Even if you're not crazy about the quirks of this lens, that's a pretty cheap price to try it out at.

[David H. Hartman]

These lenses were kit lenses so sample variation for a variety of reasons are to be expected. I've had one bad AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D out of three, on bad 28-105/3.5-4.5D out of two and no bad AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D out of two.

Accurate focus is very important and refocusing after zooming will probably be required. AF fine tuning may be required and good AF technique is essential.

As they say there is many a slip between the cup and the lip.

Dave Hartman

[benveniste]

I get targeted ads from KEH. com (gee, I wonder why?) and on another site I just got an ad for a bargain-grade one of these lenses for $35, and an excellent for $65.  Even if you're not crazy about the quirks of this lens, that's a pretty cheap price to try it out at.

I trotted mine out yesterday for a comparison shot and rediscovered an inconvenient truth.  Unless you invoke the macro feature the minimum focus distance is 1.4m.  Especially at the short end, that's more than a little restricting.

[richardHaw]

here's mine

from the junkbox to overhauled.