MF Nikkor 135mm f2.8 NAI, AI and AIs differences?

Did nikon ever make a sub-par 135? All the ones I have used work well and makr great A3's. Thr 135mm f3.5 Ai-S id a favourite of mine as its light and sharp with excellent coatings. Mine was £40 mint used. They are a bargain.

I'm not sure if there's a bad 135mm from anyone-even the 3rd party ones tend to run from good to excellent.

35mm SLR lenses in the 85mm-200mm range(especially in moderate speeds) tend to be fairly "easy" to design, and consequently a bad one would be the exception rather than the rule. Nikon's 105mm and 135mm lenses are rightfully legendary.

If you look at the modern high end boutique makers, like the Sigma ARTs and the Zeiss ZF lenses, you'll find that the 85mm focal length in particular often really shines. DXOMark has the 85mm f/1.4 ART as one of the best lenses available in terms of sheer resolution for high resolution Nikon bodies.

Did nikon ever make a sub-par 135? All the ones I have used work well and makr great A3's. Thr 135mm f3.5 Ai-S id a favourite of mine as its light and sharp with excellent coatings. Mine was £40 mint used. They are a bargain.

I'm obliged to raise my head above the parapet to grumble about the 135 DC again. Lovely idea, some people love theirs, but the LoCA (at least of mine) made it impractical for me; YMMV. Mine was vaguely sharp and had vaguely acceptable LoCA somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6 - but that's not very useful for a lens whose raison d'etre is bokeh. My 135 f/2.8 AI was just as sharp at the same apertures, much cheaper, and easier to carry around - although mine is currently a little fungus-infected. Given that the AF tended to miss on the DC lens anyway, the 135 AI doesn't even lose much by being manual focus. This is a lens that made me think "never spend a middle amount on a lens": very expensive lenses have little to complain about, very cheap lenses are usually not optically ambitious and have lower expectations, ones in the middle (24-120 zooms, the DC lenses and moderate Nikkor f/1.4 glass) have just enough compromises to bother me. Though that's a sweeping generalisation, obviously.

Whatever my complaints about the DC, I have to admit it's easier to design a good f/2.8 lens than a good f/2 one (and Leica keeps showing some slower lenses that outperform their faster alternatives). I'm not a great fan of the 85mm AF-S f/1.4 (by reputation) or f/1.8 (by experience), whereas the latest round of Otus and Art lenses seem comparatively a large step up. Even the budget 105mm f/2 Laowa (which I'd be more interested in if the apodisation filter were stronger at the edges) optically tests very well.

I'm obliged to raise my head above the parapet to grumble about the 135 DC again. Lovely idea, some people love theirs, but the LoCA (at least of mine) made it impractical for me; YMMV. Mine was vaguely sharp and had vaguely acceptable LoCA somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6 - but that's not very useful for a lens whose raison d'etre is bokeh. My 135 f/2.8 AI was just as sharp at the same apertures, much cheaper, and easier to carry around - although mine is currently a little fungus-infected. Given that the AF tended to miss on the DC lens anyway, the 135 AI doesn't even lose much by being manual focus. This is a lens that made me think "never spend a middle amount on a lens": very expensive lenses have little to complain about, very cheap lenses are usually not optically ambitious and have lower expectations, ones in the middle (24-120 zooms, the DC lenses and moderate Nikkor f/1.4 glass) have just enough compromises to bother me. Though that's a sweeping generalisation, obviously.

 

Whatever my complaints about the DC, I have to admit it's easier to design a good f/2.8 lens than a good f/2 one (and Leica keeps showing some slower lenses that outperform their faster alternatives). I'm not a great fan of the 85mm AF-S f/1.4 (by reputation) or f/1.8 (by experience), whereas the latest round of Otus and Art lenses seem comparatively a large step up. Even the budget 105mm f/2 Laowa (which I'd be more interested in if the apodisation filter were stronger at the edges) optically tests very well.

I forgot about that one ;-)

I remember trying loads of 135's a few years back. I even tried a T2 preset aperture type that looked like it had been well used and abused - was free - but again, image quality was lovely.

My favorites are the 135mm f/2.8 or f/3.5 Ai-S. I am using them almost every week and now after deciding on a Z6 they will be used on that too. Looking forward to trying new ideas (as 135mm almost always needs a tripod). Z6 plus manual Nikkors will be a good match I think!

Andrew,

Years back I initially disagreed with you on the 135 DC since mine was quite sharp. BUT, over time the LoCA wore on me and I changed my opinion. Too much purple fringing. I sold it.

Andrew,

Years back I initially disagreed with you on the 135 DC since mine was quite sharp. BUT, over time the LoCA wore on me and I changed my opinion. Too much purple fringing. I sold it.

Interesting; thank you for telling me. I'm always a bit nervous about mentioning LoCA, since it doesn't bother some people, and if I keep complaining they might start being bothered! To be fair, the images I've seen from others did seem to have less of a problem than my lens was giving me, despite Nikon's assurances that it was in spec.

I do appreciate what these lenses were trying to do, I just didn't like the trade-off - but then half of what I shoot involves reflective dark coloured plastic on a white surface crossing the focal plane, where I want to lose the background, which is a bit pathological for LoCA problems. For those still happy with theirs, I wish you the best and discourage you from paying attention to me; trying to reduce LoCA has been very expensive!

I'm always a bit nervous about mentioning LoCA, since it doesn't bother some people, and if I keep complaining they might start being bothered!

That's what happened to me with the AF-S 85/1.8G - I eventually grew so tired of it that I traded it for a Tamron 90/2.8VC. Why have f/1.8 if one can't actually use it?

FWIW, the best 135 I've ever used was the Sigma 150/2.8 macro:cool:

That's what happened to me with the AF-S 85/1.8G - I eventually grew so tired of it that I traded it for a Tamron 90/2.8VC. Why have f/1.8 if one can't actually use it?

Indeed - hence my new(ish) Sigma. I once used the pre-VC Tamron 90mm as a portrait lens - but it too has a little LoCA wide open, and it can't lose the background like the f/1.4.

FWIW, the best 135 I've ever used was the Sigma 150/2.8 macro:cool:

You're not alone. I got the 200 f/2 (which admittedly really loses the background), then got the 150mm Sigma, partly as a better macro but also because it's reasonably apochromatic. Honestly the 70-200FL is pretty good as well, but either solves the LoCA problems the DC gave me.

As far as across the frame sharpness (corners in particular) and vignetting from best to worst, the 135 f2.8 AIS....

 

I looked at my 70-200AF-s f4G at the 135 setting and found vignetting to f5.6 and poor corners until f8 by comparison.

I must admit to being surprised that the 40-year-old, 5-element design can beat one of the newest zooms in IQ. Very interesting. I wonder if the old prime also bests the 70-200mm f/2.8 pro zoom at 135mm.

I must admit to being surprised that the 40-year-old, 5-element design can beat one of the newest zooms in IQ. Very interesting. I wonder if the old prime also bests the 70-200mm f/2.8 pro zoom at 135mm.

It's a shame that I sold mine before the question came up...

Admittedly my 70-200 f/2.8 is the first generation(VRI) version-the VRII is reported softer in the center, but overall better across the full(FX frame). The current FL version kicks both their butts, but it's also out of my budget(plus only works wide open on any film camera).

Not quite-Q means four elements. P is 5 elements(H is 6, S is 7, O is 8, and if there are 9 element lenses they would be N, while 10 would be D. The only 11 element lens I know of that used this naming scheme is UD).

Correct. P = "Penta" have no clue where I got the idea re "Q, likely read something wrong...mea culpa.

I confess that the conservationist in me hates to see lenses altered. I still shoot my pre-AI Nikon bodies for that very reason. If convert you must GOTO AI Conversions for Nikon Lenses: Effective, Fast and Affordable!

I've bought AI and later lenses made for later Nikon models.

Not all non-AI lenses can be converted to AI:

Nikon non-AI lenses compatibility and conversions - an apostate's tale

I confess that the conservationist in me hates to see lenses altered. I still shoot my pre-AI Nikon bodies for that very reason. If convert you must GOTO AI Conversions for Nikon Lenses: Effective, Fast and Affordable!

 

I've bought AI and later lenses made for later Nikon models.

 

Not all non-AI lenses can be converted to AI:

Nikon non-AI lenses compatibility and conversions - an apostate's tale

I admit to not being a big fan of milling machine/file conversions of lenses.

If I have a non-AI lens that I want to use as an AI lens, I will typically look for another example that has a "factory" AI conversion. To me, those are a lot less objectionable, and also work better on ADR cameras. There are some NOS AI rings out there, but they're not usually readily available for common lenses. The other side of that, though, is that popular lenses like the old chrome nose 105mm f/2.5(which I love on digital, slide film, and B&W) are easy and inexpensive to find with factory AI rings.

I have a handful of factory conversion lenses that I use regularly-a 55mm f/3.5 Micro compensating, a Micro-Nikkor P.C. 55mmm f/3.5(diamond ring), a chrome nose 105mm, and a 200mm f/4. I also have a few "hacked" conversions-a the ones that I can think of off the top of my head are the 45mm f/2.8 GN, 55mm f/1.2(fluted ring), and 43-86mm f/3.5. I actually did the last myself-I found myself with a "rough" example of it, had an almost perfect one for my collection(that I never use), and wanted to see if the poor reputation was deserved(it is). The other two were priced right when I found them, although the f/1.2 was poorly done and I ended up using a watch escapement file to "square" the cut in the ring as it wasn't properly registering as wide open when set there.

I'm actually looking for two other lenses already converted to AI-the old chrome nose 50mm f/1.4, since I like how is looks on film and want to try it on digital, and the 5.8cm f/1.4. The latter has a REALLY interesting look, and I suspect that I really do need to find one with an actual factory ring even unmodified it will clear the AI feeler on my D800(as will the 20mm UD).

Many pre-AI lenses equipped with the official Nikon AI-updated aperture rings are not so easily found anymore, at least not on the 'bay at prices most of us would consider reasonable. I had one hell of a time pulling together a pair of silver-nose 135mm f/3,5 and 105mm f/2.5 last year: examples in nice condition have skyrocketed in price, as have those in not-so-great condition (if the seller is a wise-ass specialist in camera gear). Eventually I gave up trying to find examples with the holy trinity: decent cosmetics, decent glass, and the OEM AI ring: that way lies madness and an empty wallet.

I found the most cost-effective (though time-consuming) method is to look for a really clean pre-AI lens (good barrel/glass), then hunt for a banged-up, scratched, dented or fungal beater at giveaway price that has the compatible AI ring. With both in hand, switch out the aperture rings, then resell the beater. Despite all this effort, the two lens switcheroo (with patience) is often 30-50% cheaper than a single nice already-OEM-modified lens.

The 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S silver nose with OEM AI ring has really ramped up in asking price the past couple years: sellers routinely list them for $119 to $195 now. They don't necessarily get that ask, but their listings will sit for months until they drop the ask (if ever). That price is way too high, given the tendency of the average silver-nose 50/1.4 to have significant glass issues. In this case more than any other, I would absolutely prioritize getting a pre-AI sample with the best glass first, then look for a beater with AI ring to harvest.

Or not: the 50/1.4 silver nose is so common I don't think we need be too religious about "violating" it with the typical file hack. If you want a user 50/1.4 S for AI mount on a Nikon AI DSLR, the file hack will work fine and be a helluva lot cheaper. It even looks nicer and more appropriate because you retain the scalloped aperture ring: Nikon weirdly chose to make almost all their official update rings a complete cosmetic mismatch. The only thing gained with the OEM ring is the tiny numbers for the ADR readout in some film cameras (irrelevant with DSLR). Most of the visual objection to DIY-modified lenses is the dubious addition of a tacky white stick-on strip of ADR numbers: just don't do that, and the lens will look 95% original.

To ben_hutcherson re the ancient 5.8cm f/1.4: don't waste time looking for one with an OEM AI ring, because Nikon never made an official ring for this lens. It was on the "orphaned" list, along with all other early (pre-1966?) lenses that have no screws in their bayonet mount. These are put together differently than mid-60s and later pre-AI: since the mount is not easily removed to free the aperture ring, the aperture ring itself is designed to unscrew over the mount. This sounds easy but is a total PITA: once removed, it is difficult to reinstall the ring in perfect sync with the aperture mechanism.

I've never seen a 5.8cm hacked for AI, possibly because its been highly collectible for as long as I can remember (they're scarce enough that nobody wants to risk harming the resale value). If you must try one, reserve it for use on the Df you just ordered (which can flip up its AI tab to accommodate the 5,8cm). I've owned two, and trust me on this: contrary to several posts on other sites, the 5.8cm *will* dislodge and/or damage the fixed plastic AI follower ring and tab of most Nikon AI bodies. I learned the hard way when I got distracted and a 5.8cm snapped the corner off the tab of my D700 (it still works, fortunately, but I was not happy).

When shopping for a 5.8cm f/1.4, be on the lookout for any sign of rear element group separation: make sure the seller has good listing photos (or carefully look thru the lens if one turns up at your wonderful local dealer). The 5.8cm f/1.4 is the single most separation-prone optic Nikon ever sold. Also, check for binding or stiffness of the focus ring and/or aperture ring: these can seize up almost as bad as the infamous Contarex lenses. The 5.8cm is an interesting historical curio, with some fun optical properties, but it wasn't Nikon's finest hour in terms of build quality.

Now own the 135mm f/2,8 QC and 135mm f/3.5 QC. Previously owned the 135mm f/3.5 AI.

All are excellent, after finding good examples of the pre-AI modified them myself with proper AI rings. The f/2.8 QC is big and heavy but the simple optical formula renders really nicely in most cases (if you push it in high contrast landscape wide open on a D810 it falls apart just a bit). The f/3.5 QC silver-nose is a perfect optical match for my 105/2.5 Nikkor-P silver-nose: other than magnification and speed, I can't tell the images of one from the other. Get a clean f/3.5 QC and it will surprise you: very portable and affordable, too! The f/3.5 AI is basically the same as the 3.5 QC, with modern barrel cosmetics and slightly different multicoating. Mine worked great but became redundant after I picked up the older QC, so I sold it.

If you are thinking of DIY-modifying or swapping aperture rings on any pre-AI Nikkor 135mm, be warned the aperture mechanism on these is very tricky. Removing/reinstalling the lens mount with its extra-long diaphragm arm can be nerve-wracking (John White was nice enough to flag me on this years ago in an email). With one lens everything went back together in an instant, the other took over an hour before everything interlocked correctly. Be patient and work slowly.

To ben_hutcherson re the ancient 5.8cm f/1.4: don't waste time looking for one with an OEM AI ring, because Nikon never made an official ring for this lens. It was on the "orphaned" list, along with all other early (pre-1966?) lenses that have no screws in their bayonet mount. These are put together differently than mid-60s and later pre-AI: since the mount is not easily removed to free the aperture ring, the aperture ring itself is designed to unscrew over the mount. This sounds easy but is a total PITA: once removed, it is difficult to reinstall the ring in perfect sync with the aperture mechanism.

 

I've never seen a 5.8cm hacked for AI, possibly because its been highly collectible for as long as I can remember (they're scarce enough that nobody wants to risk harming the resale value). If you must try one, reserve it for use on the Df you just ordered (which can flip up its AI tab to accommodate the 5,8cm). I've owned two, and trust me on this: contrary to several posts on other sites, the 5.8cm *will* dislodge and/or damage the fixed plastic AI follower ring and tab of most Nikon AI bodies. I learned the hard way when I got distracted and a 5.8cm snapped the corner off the tab of my D700 (it still works, fortunately, but I was not happy).

I guess I got VERY lucky the few times I've dared to use it on my D800.

I admit to never having looked that closely at how the aperture ring was attached-I have done plenty myself just as you suggest-by using a junky donor lens-but never actually looked at my 5.8cm.

I paid plenty for mine, but did get a BIT of a break by buying it on a 6.4 million F. If I remember right, I think I paid $250 or $300 for the package, although the F had some problems from a collector perspective(it had an FTN finder, which also meant that the frame had been cut up—I did put a flag Photomic on it).

If one tried to file convert the lens, I'm not sure how well it would work given the "step" in the aperture ring that allows it to sort of clear AI tabs anyway.

In any case, I do, as a general rule, detest the hack job conversions regardless of how fancy of a business/website it is promoting them. Even though the factory aperture ring doesn't match the lens cosmetics, it still looks better to my eye, especially since, as you mentioned, some "professionals" tape a cheesy paper strip on for ADR. I guess I care about that since I like using my lenses on ADR cameras also...

I guess I got VERY lucky the few times I've dared to use it on my D800.

There might be some variations in ring thickness or fork base depth depending on serial #, mine was a fairly late #168xxx. Admittedly, I'd also abused my D700 by mounting one too many 50/1.4 pre-AIs in my quest for a good one, so the 5.8cm might have just been the final straw.

BTW, I used the wrong term in my previous posts: I meant to say "milled" AI hack, not "file" hack. I agree with the rest of you that an uneven sloppy amateurish file hack is ugly, even on a commodity so-so lens like 50/1.4 S. But if the lens is strictly to be used on a non-ADR film or digital body, I think a precsely milled hack is as nice or better looking than the OEM Nikon conversion rings. I hate the way the conversion rings have a different black finish and nubby texture (they might as well be painted green for the way they stand out on scallop-era optics). Personally, I could care less about ADR: one of the most inconsistent dubious features Nikon ever foisted on us. Works great in the F3/F4, tolerably in the FM/FE, but is utterly useless in the F2A or F2AS (my favorite 35mm film body). The double row of aperture numbers always looked ugly to me: a permanent marring of the entire lens lineup for very limited return in utility.

"the way they stand out on scallop-era optics"

Surely anything that keeps old lenses in use and not gathering dust or fungus is a good thing?

There's nothing sadder, IMHO, than something that's too nice to scrap, but too obsolete to use.

To quote Neil Young (and I hope I don't get chased for royalties) - " ... tell me why, is it hard to make appointments with yourself? When you're old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell."

Surely anything that keeps old lenses in use and not gathering dust or fungus is a good thing?

I was thinking along those lines too.. It's why I get great satisfaction from still (!!) using my AI(S) 20/3.5.. 85/2.0.. 105/2.8.. 400/3.5..