On another note about AI, Ais lens

I see the older manual lens getting cheaper every time I check E-bay and so on, What's some of the forgotten gems that can be got cheap? I have my eye on a couple NIKKOR 135mm f2.8 ai , If I can get for a good price.

Agree on 135 2.8 - one of my faves - also IMO, 24m 2.8, 35mm 2, 50mm 1.4, (55mm 1.2 not often cheap) 180mm 2.8.

The 135mm focal length fell out of popularity some years ago. Before that it was probably the first additional lens that any amateur bought after the 50mm that came with their camera. There must be a ton of them on the used market. However, the prices I'm seeing on ebay just don't reflect that, and seem on the pricey side to me.

 

I'd put the same money, or less, into a clean example of Nikon Series E 75-150mm f/3.5 - the version with a silver grip ring. It's an optically superb little zoom.

 

If you must have a faster aperture, then consider the Samyang 135mm f/2. It's about twice the price new, but it's about as close to an optically perfect lens as you'll find.

 

Having said that, there are very few awful old Nikkor lenses. Ones to avoid are some early telephotos over 200mm in focal length. The 200mm f/4 Ai is still a nice useable little lens, but the old 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor P and Q versions are definitely to be avoided.

 

I have to disagree with Sandy about the 35mm f/2 Nikkor O. It's a very old design that shows its age at the corners and edges on a full-frame DSLR. I have two samples, and they're both as bad as each other.

 

If you do a search on this forum for any lens you're interested in, then you'll get a good idea of how well or badly it performs on balance.

Edited January 26, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I see the older manual lens getting cheaper every time I check E-bay and so on, What's some of the forgotten gems that can be got cheap? I have my eye on a couple NIKKOR 135mm f2.8 ai , If I can get for a good price.

 

I'll sell you my 135mm f/2.8 Ai-S at a reasonable price. It has some superficial wear on the barrel, but the optics are in perfect condition. If you're interested, PM me your email and I'll send you some pictures.

With a little foot zooming, the 135/2.8 can do much of what an 80-200/2.8 can do, and is much smaller and lighter. The 135/2.8 AI Nikkor is a good performer, as are other lenses mentioned on this thread.

 

I have a couple of 35/2 O C Nikkors. They are not as sharp/"good" as a current Sigma 35/1.4, but I like the results when the 35/2 is stopped down more than 2.8. Results look natural somehow, like the manual focus 28/2.

 

Biggest challenge with all of these manual is achieving accurate focus with DSLR's.

In that range, I'd look at the 105 f/2.5, which can be found at very reasonable prices and is a stellar performer.

I see the older manual lens getting cheaper every time I check E-bay and so on, What's some of the forgotten gems that can be got cheap? I have my eye on a couple NIKKOR 135mm f2.8 ai , If I can get for a good price.

 

You must be perusing an eBay that exists in an alternate universe, because "Nikkor MF Lenses" + "Low Prices" + "eBay" definitely do not co-exist in the universe the rest of us occupy. Especially when it comes to specific lenses like the idiotically pricey old 135mm f/2.8 AI.

 

The price/demand issue with all the (more-desirable) manual focus Nikkors is tri-fold: they are among the most convenient lenses to use for budget video work on Canon DSLRs and Sony mirrorless cams, falling prices on used D700, D600, D800 drive higher demand for AI-coupled versions, and they are over-hyped by a plague of self-appointed youTube gurus, some of whom have such large followings they can literally double the selling price of a common lens overnight just by releasing a video. This has made life increasingly difficult for those who just want to pick up a few nice old Nikkors to play with without breaking the bank.

 

The 135mm Nikkors are a perfect case in point. Up until the canon 5DII unleashed the combo fad of affordable full frame + DSLR video, the 135s were utterly forgotten dusty relics. The focal length had fallen from most popular in the 60s/70s to most despised by the late 1980s, having been totally replaced by the new fast f/2.8 AF zooms. But as prices began falling on full-frame DSLRs in the secondary market, and photographers joined the cult of Bokeh in droves, suddenly the old 135mm warhorses became relevant again. Compared to a 70-200 zoom they're small, light and cheap, and they impart the coveted trendy "not totally sterile" look to portraits.

 

A few years back, one of the biggest youTube shills began beating an insistent drum for the Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 AIS, claiming it was "the single finest lens Nikon ever made" etc. Within a week, average selling price went from $79 to $229 or more for a clean copy. Way WAY too much for that lens: it is VERY good, technically the best MF 135mm Nikon ever sold, but its not THAT much better than other 135mm Nikkors. We're still talking film-era lenses here: their supposed perfection is still complicated by aberrations pixel peepers will find annoying. As rodeo_joe often reminds us, beyond a certain price point newer better-corrected lenses are usually more desirable for general-purpose (unless you seek a specific "look" or need manual aperture/focus control for video).

 

I've had all the Nikkor 135s at one point or another and agree with the general consensus you'll find on forums. The AIS version is sharpest, the very late pre-AI and AI that came before is the same lens (serial numbers above 73xxxx). Before that were the huge, industrial-looking, battleship-ready Q and QC pre-AI. Both are about equally sharp: not quite as good as the later version in clinical testing, but many (including me) actually prefer the rendering and bokeh of this older 4-element formula. The Q is single-coated and warmer, the QC multicoated and a little better with color and flare resistance (I kept the QC and AI'd it). For a short time there was an interim Pre-AI version with AI barrel but non-AI aperture ring (4xxxx serial #): this is the same as the QC and should not be confused with the later 5-element updates.

 

The 135mm f/3.5 AI or AIS is a fantastic, sharp, lightweight lens (serial #19xxx and above). If you don't need f/2.8 you can save money and weight with this option. The previous non-AI lookalike (serial # below 18xxxx) is a different formula, identical to the classic 135mm f/3.5 Q and QC pre-AI. The older lenses are tiny, nearly as small as the 105mm, and perform surprisingly well for their age. Here again I preferred the rendering of the old QC version, so kept that and had it AI'd. The non-AI Q and QC in mint condition sell for practically nothing ($20-$40): if you don't need AI coupling, they're the best Nikkor bargain going.

 

Having written the above essay, I'll end by admitting rodeo_joe summed it all up in one succinct remark: most people would be best served by the remarkable Nikkor 75-150mm f.3.5 Series E zoom. Performance equals or betters any of the fixed 135s, its nearly the same size, and offers the zoom feature. If you don't have particular desire for old-skool rendering or a prime lens, get the zoom.

 

The dirty little secret underlying this whole Nikkor 135 fetish, discussed on related threads: it was actually pretty easy to make a decent 135mm and hard to make a bad one. So most deliver roughly the same performance overall, even many off brands like Albinar that you can pick up for $10. The focal length is kind of an odd compromise, so you might want to start with a disposable cheapie to experiment with before committing serious coin a Nikkor AIS.

You must be perusing an eBay that exists in an alternate universe, because "Nikkor MF Lenses" + "Low Prices" + "eBay" definitely do not co-exist in the universe the rest of us occupy. Especially when it comes to specific lenses like the idiotically pricey old 135mm f/2.8 AI.

 

The price/demand issue with all the (more-desirable) manual focus Nikkors is tri-fold: they are among the most convenient lenses to use for budget video work on Canon DSLRs and Sony mirrorless cams, falling prices on used D700, D600, D800 drive higher demand for AI-coupled versions, and they are over-hyped by a plague of self-appointed youTube gurus, some of whom have such large followings they can literally double the selling price of a common lens overnight just by releasing a video. This has made life increasingly difficult for those who just want to pick up a few nice old Nikkors to play with without breaking the bank.

 

The 135mm Nikkors are a perfect case in point. Up until the canon 5DII unleashed the combo fad of affordable full frame + DSLR video, the 135s were utterly forgotten dusty relics. The focal length had fallen from most popular in the 60s/70s to most despised by the late 1980s, having been totally replaced by the new fast f/2.8 AF zooms. But as prices began falling on full-frame DSLRs in the secondary market, and photographers joined the cult of Bokeh in droves, suddenly the old 135mm warhorses became relevant again. Compared to a 70-200 zoom they're small, light and cheap, and they impart the coveted trendy "not totally sterile" look to portraits.

 

A few years back, one of the biggest youTube shills began beating an insistent drum for the Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 AIS, claiming it was "the single finest lens Nikon ever made" etc. Within a week, average selling price went from $79 to $229 or more for a clean copy. Way WAY too much for that lens: it is VERY good, technically the best MF 135mm Nikon ever sold, but its not THAT much better than other 135mm Nikkors. We're still talking film-era lenses here: their supposed perfection is still complicated by aberrations pixel peepers will find annoying. As rodeo_joe often reminds us, beyond a certain price point newer better-corrected lenses are usually more desirable for general-purpose (unless you seek a specific "look" or need manual aperture/focus control for video).

 

I've had all the Nikkor 135s at one point or another and agree with the general consensus you'll find on forums. The AIS version is sharpest, the very late pre-AI and AI that came before is the same lens (serial numbers above 73xxxx). Before that were the huge, industrial-looking, battleship-ready Q and QC pre-AI. Both are about equally sharp: not quite as good as the later version in clinical testing, but many (including me) actually prefer the rendering and bokeh of this older 4-element formula. The Q is single-coated and warmer, the QC multicoated and a little better with color and flare resistance (I kept the QC and AI'd it). For a short time there was an interim Pre-AI version with AI barrel but non-AI aperture ring (4xxxx serial #): this is the same as the QC and should not be confused with the later 5-element updates.

 

The 135mm f/3.5 AI or AIS is a fantastic, sharp, lightweight lens (serial #19xxx and above). If you don't need f/2.8 you can save money and weight with this option. The previous non-AI lookalike (serial # below 18xxxx) is a different formula, identical to the classic 135mm f/3.5 Q and QC pre-AI. The older lenses are tiny, nearly as small as the 105mm, and perform surprisingly well for their age. Here again I preferred the rendering of the old QC version, so kept that and had it AI'd. The non-AI Q and QC in mint condition sell for practically nothing ($20-$40): if you don't need AI coupling, they're the best Nikkor bargain going.

 

Having written the above essay, I'll end by admitting rodeo_joe summed it all up in one succinct remark: most people would be best served by the remarkable Nikkor 75-150mm f.3.5 Series E zoom. Performance equals or betters any of the fixed 135s, its nearly the same size, and offers the zoom feature. If you don't have particular desire for old-skool rendering or a prime lens, get the zoom.

 

The dirty little secret underlying this whole Nikkor 135 fetish, discussed on related threads: it was actually pretty easy to make a decent 135mm and hard to make a bad one. So most deliver roughly the same performance overall, even many off brands like Albinar that you can pick up for $10. The focal length is kind of an odd compromise, so you might want to start with a disposable cheapie to experiment with before committing serious coin a Nikkor AIS.

You should put that rant on video. Upload it to YouTube. Go head to head with TAP. That would be moderately entertaining!

I have a 135mm f/2.8 AI that I bought cheap and clean at the local camera shop. I honestly had no idea before reading this thread that it was such a "cult classic"-I'm guessing the shop didn't know either since I think I paid about $75 for it probably a year and a half ago.

 

I honestly haven't used mine that much-as much as I like the 135mm focal length, I often find myself using a zoom covering that range instead. It's a good lens, but for portrait use I like the 105mm f/2.5 better-knowing that the prices are such that they are, mine might shortly be appearing on Ebay :)

 

In any case, I think every Nikon manual focus user owes it to themselves to at some point use/try a 105mm f/2.5. This was one of Nikon's benchmark lenses for a long time. There are a lot of them out there, and they are inexpensive.

 

I like the 85mm f/2 AI-s, but this is a bit of a polarizing lens.

 

You have a lot of options in the "normal" range. The Series E 50mm f/1.8 is also something of a cult classic and IMO is somewhat overhyped. You can get a 50mm f/2 for less, or a 50mm f/1.8 AI-s(note that the Series E is also AI-s, but there is a Nikkor non-series-E f/1.8) for a bit more-I consider both of these better lenses. Any of the 50mm f/1.4s are great. I LOVE the AI 55mm f/3.5 Micro-in fact I prefer it to the newer AI-s 55mm f/2.8-but also don't use it as a stand-in "normal" lens as I find it too slow for my liking.

 

Every 35mm f/2 I've used is great. The 35mm f/1.4 is great also, but it will set you back a nice little pile(relative to many of the other lenses discussed here) plus also weighs a ton and the rendering wide open is...interesting...

 

I love my 24mm f/2.8, but this is another polarizing lens.

 

Regardless, one of the nice things about manual focus Nikkor is that, for the most part, you can cover the 20mm to 200mm FL range with only 52mm filters. There are exceptions to this and both the earliest and latest MF 20mm lenses use filters larger than 52mm(72mm for the 20mm f/3.5 UD, 62mm for the 20mm f/2.8). There are also a few 72mm lenses, like the 135mm f/2. Still, though, the AI 20mm f/3.5 and f/4, all the way out to the 200mm f/4, are 52mm along with the majority of lenses in-between.

20mm f4 - compact and sharp

20mm f4 - compact and sharp

 

If you can live with the vignetting.

 

I have one and love it, but it does vignette badly and stopping down doesn't really improve things.

 

Also, if you're going to use an FA or F4, it's worth getting a true AI version and not an AI converted one. It took me a bit of hunting to find a "real" AI lens.

never noticed that

If you can live with the vignetting.

 

I have one and love it, but it does vignette badly and stopping down doesn't really improve things....

 

Here is Ken Rockwell's review of the 20 F4:

 

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/20f4.htm

FWIW, just to add to the "filters" argument, I have a strong nebula (LPR) filter for astronomy, for which 52mm was the largest I could get. It was on my mind that it fits my 135 f/2.8, although since mine has a bit of fungus I also have a 200mm f/4 that it'll go on. (Also rear drop-in for the 200 f/2, helpfully.) All a bit short for astronomy, but better than nothing - if I ever get clear skies.

Most of my favorite manual lenses are pre-AI, and most converted, but some are likely just as good or better in AI form. The 50/F2 AI is wonderfully sharp and well behaved and usually quite inexpensive. I also would second any of the later 105/2.5, which are hard to beat. The 200/4, (mine a very old pre-AI converted, it looks, with a dull hatchet), is nice to use, and tolerates extensions very well, making it an unexpectedly good macro for chasing bugs. I also have a pre-AI 55/3.5 which is good and sharp, so I expect the AI version would be at least equal.

for me one of the dirt cheap forgotten Gem's is the series-e 100mm f2.8 , still one of my favourite lenses.

Sizewise its around an AI-S 50mm so one of those lenses you put in your pocket, it shares filters ( pola) and hood, and lenscaps with the 50mm , same thread size, Has a very nice bouquet , and it is easy to focus (for me) ...

Two versions : Silver ring and totally black. I like the silever ring better just for the looks...

 

It performs well on a 1.4 TC ( all versions i think) as on Macro tubes ( i use it on my PB-4 bellows too…)

 

Boght mine (mint condition) for around 30 euro's but some are now mcuh more expensive..

Lots of goodies already mentioned. 135 f2.8; 75-150 f3.5 zoom particularly. I would add the 28 f2.0 and the 50-135 f3.5 zoom. I have two of the latter, and haven't decided which to keep, but it is a handy focal length range for walking around.

So many old gems to cherish! So many mentioned already. I have a couple of old ones (200/4.0 AI, 100/2.8 E, 85/2.0 AIS, 24/2.8 AI'd+AI, 55/3.5 AI... etc.) but actually the only oldies that still see 'regular' use are: 20/3.5 AI, 400/3.5 AI and 105/2.8 AIS..

The latter is in fact on a D800 in my bag to work TODAY. Brilliant jack-of-all-trades! Compact, sharp. At infinity as well as much closer (obviously, it being a micro lens) than all alternatives. I really don't like a 100mm lens 'starting' from 1m focusing distance!! And with moderately acceptable background 'bokeh' ..if you're not too picky.

And with moderately acceptable background 'bokeh' ..if you're not too picky.

 

Ofcourse "Bokeh" …. :D

I just hate autocorrect ...:mad:

Switching between Dutch, French and English all day does not make things easier sometimes...:rolleyes:

I finally gave in and bought an excellent+ Nikon 75-150 Series E lens on ebay for $40.00. I don't really need it, as I have a Nikkor 50-135 lens already. I just want to see how good it is, whether my copy is as good as Galen Rowell's copy LOL.

I finally gave in and bought an excellent+ Nikon 75-150 Series E lens on ebay for $40.00. I don't really need it, as I have a Nikkor 50-135 lens already. I just want to see how good it is, whether my copy is as good as Galen Rowell's copy LOL.

Hahaha! the joke is on you now! :eek: I have been suspicious for years about this lens. Not only because it is 'push/pull' (which I find an added complication in the already tricky world of manual focusing), but mainly because I just think there's an incrowd that KNOWS that this lens is in fact horrible.. The joke being that they encourage everyone to buy it, as an initiation rite for abovementioned 'incrowd'. Obviously: the lens is then quickly sold to the next unsuspecting victim. Congratulations, Vincent!

Or why did you think there are so many of these lenses floating around, mmm? ;)

...

Or why did you think there are so many of these lenses floating around, mmm? ;)

 

Hmm... zoom creep...?

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

...Or creepy zooms, if you ask me.. :(

The Nikkor E 75-150 suffers horribly from zoom creep: no question, its a drawback of that lens design. But this is what zooms WERE when it was released: the most popular respected pro zoom of all time to that point was the push-pull 80-200 f/4.5 Nikkor (which also suffers from zoom creep, now that most are pushing 40 years of age). Aside from annoyingly loose focus/zoom ring, the 75-150 is remarkably good glass for a "bargain consumer" lens. The niftiest portrait zoom Nikon ever offered (bonus: it works a treat with infrared).

 

A little over-hyped in recent years, but still a better value/performance package than many overpriced prime Nikkors within its focal length range. Note it does NOT focus all that accurately with the green-dot rangefinder in DSLRs: as with some other popular MF Nikkors, the green dot system miscalibrates to deadly effect. You need a practiced technique (or mirrorless camera with EVF) to get max sharpness from the 75-150.

 

Re "creep": the trick is to not get hung up on pristine barrel appearance. Zoom creep is easily fixed by applying one or two strips of black duct tape to the inner barrel, which restores damping to the push-pull ring. Fugly, but if you get the lens for peanuts and it makes great images, who cares? We're not talking Leica jewelry here: the series E lenses are the most generic, chhintzy looking optics around (which is why they never sold that great, and why many just sit and rot on eBay if priced too high by greedy sellers).

 

If you HATE zoom creep with a passion, there are alternatives to the 75-150 Series E. It was/is an open secret that Nikon did not make the 75-150 E alone: Kiron/Vivitar pitched in as OEM partners. The Kiron version is labeled 70-150mm f/4, the Vivitar as 70-150mm f/3.8. All three typically test out as f/3.8 approx, so no appreciable difference in max aperture T-stop. All three are equally sharp. The Kiron is a push-pull like the Nikkor, but with much more durable damping (few Kirons creep). The Vivitar has separate zoom and focus rings, so no creep whatsoever. Unfortunately, all the rings of the Kiron/Vivitar turn the opposite direction from Nikkors, which bugs some users.

Edited February 5, 2019 by orsetto

One of my favorite Nikon zoom lenses is my 25-50 mm f4. A very nice lens for landscapes.