$40.00 lens scary sharp !

<p>I've been reading a lot of posts recently about the various Nikon products out there like the 70-200 AFS and the Nikon 85mm F1.4 etc etc all costing in the thousands, but I urge people to look outside the box. I'm as guilty as anyone that if funds permitted my attic would be full of empty gold boxes but thanks to the internet there is a treasure house of really useable lenses out there for very reasonable prices. I just aquired a 135mm 3.5 ais Nikon lens in mint condition for less than $40.00 it is an absolute jewell I put it on my D300 just to play, and took this very casual snap in bright sunlight while not a masterpeice I was blown away by not only by how sharp the lens was it but by the contrast also, it was shot at F8 and it seems bitingly sharp from edge to edge I'm not a sharpness freak but would love to hear if any body else has had similar experiences from bargain lenses.<br>

Steve</p><div></div>

<p>centre frame this is unsharpened out of the camera</p><div></div>

<p>Steve,<br>

Your are right, at f/8 you should be getting very sharp image or something is really wrong. This should be the case for almost all lenses, except for a broken lens, of course.<br>

The issue I have with the really old AiS Nikkors is that they tend to have a slight magenta cast. I have seen it on film and digital sensors.</p>

 

<p>Most 135mm lenses are very good. Then, because of zooms and the need for longer teles, they got overlooked by many. I would expect that lens to be tack sharp as you have found. Just because the world has gone AF, DSLR this and megapixel that, does not negate the fact that Nikon and other manufacturers produced excellent optics long before some of you were born. It's nice to see people discovering this, and you got a good bargain.</p>

<p>Well you have gone and exposed the secret, Steve. Sharpness was invented decades ago. Lots of folks overlook AI, and AIS lenses simply because they lack auto focus and other bells and whistles or they just don't know the more important truth you have revealed. As you have discovered, that can be a mistake. There are lots of cut diamonds out there just laying on the ground. ;-)</p>

<p>I recently bought a 200mm f4 AI and I love it. It's also very sharp (when I can hold the camera still) and it seems to have just a slightly different color cast than my other lenses that I also like. Additionally, I've been playing aroung with my 28-80mm f3.3/5.6 G lens that I got with my N65 a few years ago and have been pleasantly suprised at it's sharpness (remember that this is a $50 kit lens). I'll post a couple of shots I took this afternoon.</p>

<p>Let's try that again. First attempt didn't work because i didn't put in a caption.</p><div></div>

<p>100% crop.</p><div></div>

<p>There are a few prime lenses in certain focal lengths that seem to be great optical performers whatever the manufacturer, lens mount, or focusing system. 50mm lenses seem to be like that, and 135mm lenses, too.</p>

<p>I had a JC Penney 135mm with a Canon EF mount that I got for $12 and produced images I could be proud.</p>

<p>Congrats on your new lens...</p>

<p>There is a range of focal lengths (~35-135) where good performance seems to have been mastered decades ago. The improvements since then have been mostly in coatings, ultra wide-angles, zooms, and ultra telephotos. So, if you're looking for focal lengths in the 35-135 range, old prime lenses are still great bargains. Even some old zooms are supposed to be better than consumer zooms from today (kit zooms and such). Of course, people try to sell new stuff, so they'll keep saying how good this and that newly introduced lens is, but if you look at some classic Zeiss lens designs still in use today - their design dates back to a century ago. Check <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml">Paul Rudolph</a>'s work, for an example - he also worked on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotar">Biotar</a> design, which interestingly is derived from a design of Gauss from 1817!<br>

135mm seems to have been a really popular focal length in the film era, along with the ubiquitous 50mm and 28mm. Lenses in this focal length are usually pretty sharp.</p>

 

<p>What's good to know, for me, is that the 135mm is so sharp. I've avoided them because I've heard they were not very good.</p>

<p>Like Cory, I'm a big fan of the 200mm f/4 (mine's an AIS) and often pack it instead of the 70-200mm (version 1). It's small, very sharp, and doesn't have the 70-200 version 1's corner issue on FX. It cost less than a 77mm polarizer.</p>

<p>After 1945, all of the designs and patents of E. Leitz, Carl Zeiss, and Zeiss Ikon were placed in the public domain by the Allied powers. These were the starting points for the Japanese, notably Nikon, who subsequently improved them. It shouldn't be a surpise that a fixed focal length lens of moderate aperture from the 1960's can be quite sharp. By that time it was more a matter of quality control than anything else. High speed lenses and zooms are a different story altogether.</p>

<p>No offense, Steve, I have no idea whether your 135mm/f3.5 AI-S lens is sharp or not. However, the center crop you posted at 10:47pm looks a little soft to me. The man's left eye is not sharp and his eyeblow is like a blur. All of that could be the result of camera shake, subject motion, or focusing issues. Of course it could potentially be the lens also.</p>

<p>Whether extreme sharpness is desirable for a portrait like this is another issue. A little softness may be desirable, especially for a lot of women and older people.</p>

<p>Mind telling us where you bought this for 40 bucks? I do searches on Craigsl*st on occasions and people are trying to sell lenses at ridiculous prices.</p>

<p>Shun<br>

No offence of course the shot is totally unscientific and I actually regret the title of the post, the fact it was a portrait was incidental. I was just very surprised by how good this little lens performed. It was as I said a snapshot there is as much chance of camera shake or subject movement or misfocus and I only took one frame, the post was inspired by reading so many posts about how people were unhappy with the image quality of the expensive lenses they bought I just wanted to point out some of these lenses that are available cheaply are still quite useable and will yield more than acceptable results.<br>

I might be some sort of voice in the wilderness but I feel there is way too much emphasis on expensive equipment and there should be more emphasis placed on actually taking pictures and improving ones skill, if this offends people I'm sorry, photography is as expensive an occupation as you make it, thats great. I just don't think people should feel excluded because they don't have the latest and greatest equipment that's all.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Here's a shot with a D200 and Nikon's 28-85mm Af 3.5-4.5 @ 1/30th F 8.0 with some fill flash, on a beanbag. This was a mid-priced zoom (I think it used to be $350 or so new in the mid 90's IIRC), and I bought it used on ebay a couple of years ago for $42.50. And it was in true KEH Ex+ condition to boot.</p>

<p>Not a noble zoom nor perfect length for crop sensor use, but it works quite nicely for me and my needs.</p>

<p>Jim</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I might be some sort of voice in the wilderness but I feel there is way too much emphasis on expensive equipment and there should be more emphasis placed on actually taking pictures and improving ones skill, if this offends people I'm sorry, photography is as expensive an occupation as you make it, thats great. I just don't think people should feel excluded because they don't have the latest and greatest equipment that's all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, that is all fine. I always remind people to improve as a photographer first and equipment is always secondary. Sometimes it is painful to see people using the latest D3 (actually it is not the latest any more), D3X, Canon 20+MP ... cameras and get crappy images.</p>

<p>However, saying that all old AI/AI-S lenses are just fine today is also misleading. For example, the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S I bought back in 1987 now shows pretty serious chromatic aberration on digital, but I still regularly use the 105mm/f2.8 AF macro I bought in 1990. It really depends on which lens.</p>

<p>In this case I simply don't think Steve's sample images validate the "scary sharp" part of the title.</p>

<p>"Sometimes it is painful to see people using the latest D3 (actually it is not the latest any more), D3X, Canon 20+MP ... cameras and get crappy images."</p>

<p>It's important to ensure that images are crappy because of the photographer, and not because of the gear!</p>

<p>Shun<br>

point taken about the photo wrong headline and definitely wrong subject, I took unscientific to a new level. My apologies.<br>

But I here's what I said "but thanks to the internet there is a treasure house of really useable lenses out there for very reasonable prices." that's along way from "However, saying that all old AI/AI-S lenses are just fine today is also misleading" my point was for people not to overlook the older lenses available that's all. And I don't want to be misunderstood if someone want's to shoot their baby snaps with a $6000 camera and a $2000 lens I'm all for it, what I don't want to happen is for people to think they can't make decent photos without the latest and greatest equipment and figure the hobby is too expensive to bother with, because it doesn't have to be. h<br>

Here is another example of this lens still unscientific but showing the edge at wide open okay not scary sharp but quite useable, which should have been my original headline .<br>

One other thing is, these older lens are so nice and compact, I use them sometimes for no other reason than they are smaller and more discreet, a D70 with a 24mm lens is a nice little ensemble, maybe it's me but I sometimes get embarrased with using huge lenses for taking snaps.<br>

Steve</p><div></div>

<p>shot wide open</p>

<p>the edge</p><div></div>

<p>Nish... you should check out KEH.com. I bought my 200mm f4 AI in "bargain" condition (it look's great to me) for $69.</p>

<p>Nish<br>

I'm sorry I ignored your question, Cory's advice is very sound KEH is a great resource and much less of a crap shoot than internet list where I bought my lens but I kind of cheated it came on a camera and I sold the camera<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Pictures taken with my AI and AIS lenses on the D40 have more contrast (and thus appear sharper) than with the 18-70 AFS zoom. That's with using bounce flash around f8. The 4 element 135mm lenses are inherently contrasty due to the fewer number of air-glass surfaces. That seems to be the case with Steve's photo. When it's possible to shoot without autofocus, Nikkor primes are a great choice to have. </p>