Zoom-Nikkor MF 35~105mm AIs opinions?

so i'm looking for a decent mf, old-school, nikkor zoom to leave on

my camera (an fm2/n) for general use, and short trips and that sort

of thing.

 

my primary reasons for looking at this lens is that it's a good

range of focal lengths for me (i don't have a lot of use for

anything even in the telephoto range unless i'm sightseeing), and it

takes the same size filter as all my other lenses.

 

the larger ranged lenses do not take the same size, and tend to be

larger and heavier. the macro ring construction is something that

after thought and comparison, i prefer. so that's not a problem.

 

however, i have heard this lens has a terrible problem with light

falloff, and flare.

 

does anyone own and use one of these? what's your experience? is the

flare easily fixed with a shade and/or polarizer? how bad is the

falloff? what about sharpness at the corners, or sharpness in

general?

 

i'd be interested in seeing some shots taken with this lens.

I very strongly recomend that no one purchase this lens. I have had both the AIS version and the AF D version of the 35-105 Nikkor and have not been satisfied with either lens. Both lenses exhibit poor sharpness, flare, and very poor contrast. The sharpness is bad enough that any enlargement over 5 x 7 produce distinctly soft prints. At an 11 x 14 print this softness is very apparent at any viewing distance under 3 feet.

 

Many years ago, in a fit of pique, I decide that I would go all Nikkor with my lens system. I had gotten tired of the mix of lenses with the focusing direction being backwards on about 50% of my lenses. Because of this I traded in a very good Tokina 35-105 for the AIS version of the Nikkor lens and have always regretted that decision, the Tokina was a much better lens. When I went all AF for my lenses I had hopes that the much newer AF D lens had been improved. It wasn't, the AF D lens exhibits all of the faults of the earlier AIS version of the 35-105 zoom.

 

My hard disk took a dive and I lost the instructions on how to load pics onto these pages. If one of the moderators could send me those instructions, I can post an uncorrected, 800x600, sample and a clip from the scan of a negative that perfectly illustrates why I am not happy with either version of these lenses. The picture that I have in mind was shot using a tripod because I though it would be a great image, the lens spoiled that.

I have one of these lenses, bought it new in 1985. At that time my most used lenses were a 35mm f/2.0 and a105mm f/2.5, so on paper, this tiny zoom seemed like a great tool. Over time, I used it a lot, but have since �retired� it based on a couple of important (for me) factors that made it less than satisfying in real world use.<P>

 

<B>First some positives things:</B> This lens is made to the same high mechanical standards of Nikkors from that era, much better than the consumer zooms of today. Secondly, the physical size of this lens is pretty nice when you consider that it has the same 52mm filter ring as the primes it replaces. A feature missing from modern zooms is depth of field scales for zone and hyper-focusing, but the 35-105mm AIS lens has these at least for some apertures. I put these to use very often while using this lens. In the middle apertures, this lens was able to produce nice quality images.<P>

 

<B>On the down side:</B> Obviously, the aperture is slower than the primes. I can honestly say that I lost shots while carrying the zoom that would have been easy with the primes that I usually carried. The focusing action was a little too gradual for my taste. When combined with the darker finder (aperture) and depth of field differential over the primes (aperture again), the focusing was pretty labor intensive for me. I seemed to need more back and forth action to establish focus, and even then it was subjective, especially at the wider end. And for me, the biggest problem was the so-called macro mode. In its normal range the lens simply stops focusing at 4 feet. From there, you need to engage a small button and then adjust yet another ring to focus below 4 feet. This adds another step into the process that slowed me down quite often. I am surprised how often I am at less than 4 feet with my 35mm lens, and this zoom made that less than a smooth transition.<P>

 

The bottom line for me anyhow is that the lens did not deliver as I had imagined it would. For all of the promise of a small lens that covered my most used lenses, the primes won out based on ease of focus and low-light capability. If you shoot out of doors in good light with ISO 400 spped film and mostly at long distances, then this lens might be fine for you.<P>

 

I will post two images taken from the same spot, one at 35mm (using the DOF scales for hyper-focus) and one at 105mm. You can see the low level of distortion and pretty good sharpness albeit at f/11.<div></div>

And...<div></div>

It has a reputation of having the largest sample variation of any lens Nikon has ever produced. The best samples are excellent, the worst are mediocre.

 

I have one. I usually carry it when I'm travelling light and carrying only one other lens, usually a 50mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.4.

 

I have no complaints with the lens, but I use a "better" lens when I'm planning more important shots.

In addition, the variability is, also, within its zoom range. I had one; never knew what I will get. I did get some great pictures with it, but I now get many more with my 105mm f2.5 and 28mm f2.8 (both ais). I will say that it was a fine performer at its close (macro 1:4) range.

For parties/events/snaps with a flash type of people photography you might like it. For its range it's small and portable. I did a couple of weddings with it, and it did fine (although I'm an amateur, so don't trust my opinion). I had one for a while and found I used it at the extreme lengths a lot of the time, and I don't do a lot of close up stuff, so changed to a 28mm and a 105mm and was much happier. Depends if you're a zoom kind of guy or not, really. If you're deeply into manual exposure calculation or hand-held metering, being variable aperture makes it a bit of a pain. The close up feature is nice for close-ups, but a major pain when you're at those not-all-that-close-up distances and have to fiddle with the button thingy. Mine seemed to be sufficiently sharp, but I didn't do anything especially critical with it, although I suspect at the close up range it was pretty good compared with a lot of 'macro' zooms out there. It will happily flare, just like any complex zoom design - hood advised. I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid it - it's definitely a 'need to try it for yourself' lens.

<br><br>

Here's a couple of shots from it:

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.jenweb.net/noblewed/images/big/9_7.jpg">

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.jenweb.net/photo/images/big/adobeboxes.jpg">

Rats. I could really learn to hate this forum's UI. Let's try that again...

<br><br> Here's a couple of shots from it: <br><br> <img src="http://www.jenweb.net/noblewed/images/big/9_7.jpg"> <br><br> <img src="http://www.jenweb.net/photo/images/big/adobeboxes.jpg">

I have one and it seems to me that it makes nice sharp pictures, better than some other zooms I've seen. If there's a lot of sample variation in these, I guess I got a good one. It does have a couple of drawbacks. One is that the zoom (at least on mine) is very loose, making it difficult to ensure that it stays where you set it unless you hold on or put tape on it, and nearly impossible to focus without rechecking the frame. Another is that the macro setting, as someone else pointed out, requires pushing a button and rotating a separate ring, and the macro range itself is not at 105 mm, where I would prefer it. And it is pretty slow. Nonetheless this is often the "default" lens I leave on the camera because of its useful range and decent sharpness.<div></div>

the macro-ring construction and bad close-distance range doesn't bother me too much for the purpose i need this for. for more planned shots, i'd just use one of my primes, which are brighter ad focus closer anyways.

 

i'm actually more or less looking at it to replace a god-awful vivitar model of the same basic set of features, that my mother picked up for $35 20 years ago. it has a terrible vignetting and light falloff problem, bad sharpness especially at the corners, flares like hell, and is really really heavy. the nikkor has another stop on it too, in the high end.

 

but i found on my last trip that it stayed on my camera a good percentage of the time. the range just suited me well.

 

judging from those pictures and presuming i actually get a GOOD one, it looks like i'd probably be satisfied with this lens for that kind of purpose.

Jeff,

 

I think you should spend your money on a nice prime, like the 50 f/1.8 or 35 f/2 Ais. I have the 35-105 and am looking to selling it as it really does not give satisfying results (sharpness and speed).

 

Albert,

 

Nice shots of City Hall.

i have a 50mm 1.8 ais, and a 28m 2.8 ai which i am trying to lose in favor of the 28mm 2.8 ais (bought the wrong one, oops). i'm also planning on getting a 35mm prime of some sort at some point, i just haven't decided on exactly which. i might be getting a 24mm 2.0 after that.

 

just looking for a wide ranged, reasonable quality lens for quick trips, or when i don't wanna carry around a bunch of lenses.

 

truth be told, i'd probably use the 28 or 35 primes alot more.

This lens has a variable reputation, some samples are good optically, others are not so good. Build quality is very good, like other manual focus Nikkors. It is a one-touch zoom with the nice DOF marks on the barrel. It only focuses to 1.4m at all focal lengths, which is rather long, but it has a macro mode which operates at all focal lengths, the greatest magnification is obtained at the short end of the zoom.

 

There are some alternatives worth considering. The AIS 35-70/3.3-4.5 can deliver good results provided you stop down a little. The simpler optical design means it is much more resistant to flare and ghosting. It has separate rings for zooming and focusing so it lacks the DOF marks. It focuses to 0.35m at all focal lengths with no fiddly macro mode so is much easier to use for closeup shooting. It has a small zoom range which is less useful but it makes up for it by being more portable. Build quality is not quite up to the standard of other AIS lenses, the aperture and focus rings are plastic, although it is still a well made lens.

 

A problem with both these lenses is that the aperture changes when you zoom. Each time you zoom you will need to adjust the aperture ring to obtain the correct exposure. The FM2 is easier to use with constant aperture zooms. Constant aperture mid-range MF zooms with the 52mm filter are the AI 43-85/3.5, series-E 36-72/3.5 and AIS 28-50/3.5. These are all decent lenses, but not outstanding. They have rather limited zoom ranges and do not focus very close, although the 28-50 has a macro mode. You can compare the specifications of these, and other nikon lenses here:

 

http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon.html

 

If you can live with variable aperture zooms and don't mind using an AF lens, the 28-70/3.5-4.5 is also worth considering. Optics are decent, as good or better as the others mentioned here and has a useful zoom range. For an AF lens, the manual handling is very good, although it's not the same as an manual lens.