24 mm and 135 mm MF AI-S lens where to look for

[Tri-x]

Hi
I want to buy a 24mm 2.8 Nikkor and a 135 mm 2.8 Nikkor. Both Manual Focus AI-S.
Looking on the WWW I see different versions around.
I know that aperture blades need to be dry, no fungus on glass smooth focussing ect.
It's more what version is superior to the other versions?
Can one recommend which are the best to go for?

Many thanks in advance
Best regards

Hans

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The preferred version depends largely on the camera model. Old Nikons which can mount pre-AI Nikkors allow virtually any manual-focus Nikkor to be used.  The earlier models of the 24/2.8 labelled Nikkor -N (or preferablky, -NC for multicoating) have smallest aperture f/16 and would be my first choice for say an F2. If it is had as pre-AI, asking price tends to be much lower as well as the  because these vintage lenses are going slowly out of fashion (many of the modern Nikons can only mount AI or AIS lenses; the Df being a noteworthy exception; some lower-end models from the D3xxx or D5xxx sometimes can use the old lenses but then without metering). One can find even these old lenses already modified for AI (described as AI'd or similar phrases).

Instead of the 135/2.8, I'd recommend hte classic legend 105/2.5 Nikkor.

Roland Vink's Nikon pages http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ are a treasure chest of pertinent information on Nikkor old and new. A resource many of us visit frequently.

[DougB]

I second what Bjørn has noted above. I have numerous MF Nikon lenses and have purchased the majority from the Fred Miranda site (Fredmiranda.com) as the purchase experience is "safer" than though the Bay, etc. Also have a look at KEH.com - another reputable retailer. You can get most Pre-AI Nikon lenses converted to AI and therefore usable on most modern Nikon cams by John White in Michigan at "AIConversions.com" The cost is minimal & John has worked on several of mine & does a great job. Of course, all of this assumes you are located in N America to make shipping easier. Good luck

[Akira]

Hi, Hans, welcome to NG!

I used to use the Nikkor-NC version on a film body, and it showed less distortion than then-current Ais version.  Due to the high-index glass of the time NC was produced, the NC shows a bit of yellowish tint.  Ais was free of such tint.

So long as you use it on a film body, I would go for the NC version.  Its focus throw is longer than that of Ais, which makes the pre-focus shooting by guesstimating the distance easier.  I'm not sure which would perform better on digital, though.

[Tri-x]

Thanks Bjorn,
I read about the 105 mm lens and understand that there is a Gauss version and a Sonnar version?
The Gauss version seems to be the better one? Should it be de P.C. version or are the later once equal or better?

Thanks DougB
I live in the Netherlands (Europe) but agree that ebay is not the most reliable site to get good stuff.
But if stuff comes from the US to the EU the customs jump on it and grab VAT and other taxes out of my wallet. It's the law, I know bus sometimes this hurts 
I prefer to get a lens already AI ready so no conversion needed.

[Tri-x]

Hi Arika,
I just now see you post, we must have cross posted I suppose
What do you mean by NC versions?
Sorry I ask but I'm not well known on these terms 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Nikkor-N (N=nine elements), -NC (nine elements, the 'C' signifies multicoating). Nikon did this in the earliest stage of launching multicoated lenses to denote the difference, probably as a marketing strategy. Later all lenses were assumes to be multicoated and they dropped the extra label.

[John Geerts]

Is the 24/2.8 K version not optically the same as the N C version?

[Roland Vink]

Yes, the 24/2.8 K (last pre-AI version) is optically the same as the N-C version, with 9 elements in 7 groups, fully multicoated. The K version is a bit nicer though, it has 7 aperture blades compared to 6 for the older versions, which I think gives nicer shaped out of focus blurs. It also stops down to f22 instead of f16 for the older versions, if you need to stop down that far.

The optics changed with the AI version to 9 elements in 9 groups, in a slightly more compact design. The same optics went essentially unchanged to the AIS, AF and AFD versions.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

When a newer version offers f/22 instead of merely f/16 it is only natural to assume the optical design has been tweaked.  Perhaps not to an extent that will show up on a lens drawing, but allowing the smaller aperture must adversely impact performance unless some additional fine-tuning had been introduced. Going from 6 to 7 aperture blades points towards the same.

As Nikon very rarely disclose such information, we'll never know for certain.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

My preference for the 105 is the AI, but the K is more or less identical  in particular after being AI-modified. The K does have a very slight edge in handling by its broader and scalloped focusing collar, but nothing major. As long as the lens either is AI or at least has the "C" symbol to mark it as being multi-coated, all is well.

The "Sonnar" vs "Gauss" (or Xenotar) can be easily differentiated by the much larger rear element of the latter. The first is less contrasty and flares easier, yet delivers quite respective performance. I distinctly recall the first time I used one of the PC (Xenotar) lenses and was very surprised to see its beautiful colour rendition and more "snappy" rendition than the "Sonnar" version I used at that time, so I quickly swapped. Over time I have amassed each and every version of this classic 105 but my evaluation of them has not changed over the years. Today I'm using an AI on my Df.

The AIS has straight-edged aperture blades so its bokeh might be a bit more nervous. Also, the slide-out hood tends to be wobbly and thus is not to everyone's liking.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Instead of the 135/2.8, I'd recommend hte classic legend 105/2.5 Nikkor.

Roland Vink's Nikon pages http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ are a treasure chest of pertinent information on Nikkor old and new. A resource many of us visit frequently.

Bjørn, would you say that the 105mm 2.5 is optically superior to the 135mm 2.8 AI/AIS? If so, would that also apply to the 135mm 3.5 AI/AIS?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

'Superior' is a tricky term. These lenses have their strong and weak sides. I'd rank the 105 above the two there for its overall well-balanced quality and handling. There were good reasons why Nikon users over a very long period of time preferred the 105; in fact, when I first entered photography in the '60s, only Nikon had it in their lens line while the other brands offered 135.

That being said, the 135/2.8 is also very good, while the 135/3.5 due to its simpler optical design always had a little less "snap". However, the f/3.5 performs very well for IR.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

'Superior' is a tricky term. These lenses have their strong and weak sides. I'd rank the 105 above the two there for its overall well-balanced quality and handling. There were good reasons why Nikon users over a very long period of time preferred the 105; in fact, when I first entered photography in the '60s, only Nikon had it in their lens line while the other brands offered 135.

That being said, the 135/2.8 is also very good, while the 135/3.5 due to its simpler optical design always had a little less "snap". However, the f/3.5 performs very well for IR.

1. Yes, I appreciate that, like what is the case with people, it is not possible to find all the desired qualities in one single entity. That is why there are different lenses, and that is why most people who make many pictures have several - if not also many - different lenses.

2. As a matter of fact, I have owned the 135mm 2.8 AI for some years now (purchased second hand) and even if I agree that it is competent I have yet to see the exquisite brilliance I might have expected. Of course, I still hope that this is partially caused by my novice status in extracting the most out from my NEF files. I only purchased my D750 a month ago - after much pondering over whether to choose the D750 or the D810. The expectation that the former would perform a hair's breadth better in very dark environments was the deciding factor.

[Roland Vink]

When a newer version offers f/22 instead of merely f/16 it is only natural to assume the optical design has been tweaked.  Perhaps not to an extent that will show up on a lens drawing, but allowing the smaller aperture must adversely impact performance unless some additional fine-tuning had been introduced. Going from 6 to 7 aperture blades points towards the same.

As Nikon very rarely disclose such information, we'll never know for certain.

It is possible the design was tweaked at this point, but the optical drawings I have seen for the Nikkor-N and K versions (from old dealer sales manuals) show identical dimensions. Of course, the drawings are not always 100% accurate, and they don't show if glass materials changed.

Going from 6 to 7 aperture blades has no bearing on the optical design, perhaps it was simply to have a more consistent design or bokeh across the range - most lenses at the time had 7 aperture blades (although the K 85/1.8 retained 6 blades when it surely would have benefited from having 7 or more blades). Other lenses also had changes to the number of aperture blades with no apparent change to the optics, for example early Nikkor-N 35/1.5 had 9 blades, later reduced to 7.

Allowing a lens to close down an extra stop also says little about whether the optics changed or not. Many wide and standard lenses from the 1960s only stopped down to f16, while later versions (some which have the same or very similar optics) stop down to f22. I presume Nikon realised that some photographers wanted the extra DOF.

But as you say, we will never know for certain. What I can say is the 24/2.8 N-C is at least very similar to the K 24/2.8