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

Hello everyone. I am looking to acquire a Nikkor 135mm for a trip, and I've found myself with several options. Consensus has it that the

135 2.8 AIs is an extremely high quality piece of equipment. But, I want to know if there is a serious optical difference between the NAI, AI

and AIs versions of this lens. If it is worth my while, I will buy a NAI version and send it off for conversion, as long as it is optically

comparable to the newer versions of the lens at the same 2.8 f stop. I hope someone can summarize the differences between the

generations and offer an opinion whether the extra money is worth spending, or if a negligible difference exists.

 

I thank you kindly.

 

 

-R

<p>http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html<br>

Latest NAI, Ai, AiS have same optical formula, Series E does not, optical formula may or may not be the same as the earlier NAi versions.</p>

If they are fundamentally the same, what accounts for the tremendous price difference between the generations?

<p>According to Mir.com ( <a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/135mm.htm#f2.8">http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/135mm.htm#f2.8</a> )<br>

there are two version of pre-AI lens, one with only four elements and a later version with five. The 5 element formula is the same in the Ai and Ai-S version, although the AR coating was improved at some point from NIC to SIC.</p>

<p>Prices vary widely due to condition and the perception that Ai-S lenses are better than plain AI, while some pre-AI lenses have collectible status. Plus *Bay prices are getting stupid in general. If you're going to pay close to $500 for an MF 135mm lens, then you might as well buy the f/2 Samyang, which gets excellent reviews.</p>

<p>Price is affected by a number of factors. For one thing, if you're using an AI/AI-s camera (which most people are, these days), you probably don't want a pre-AI lens. That reduces the demand for the oldest lenses.</p>

<p>I have tried most of the different types, however the older f/2.8 lenses from the 60's and early 70's are almost twice the size of the newer Ai/Ai-S versions - and better built too - but maybe not so good for travel. The older ones have a screw out hood which is better constructed than the newer pull out hood versions and the focus and aperture selection are a bit nicer (smoother) too, however they are 4 element as opposed to the later 5 element as Joe said. Trying both there is little difference in results as I think the change form 4 to 5 elements was to reduce the size. The newer lenses flare perhaps a little less wide open and are a hair sharper, but stop the old ones down to f/4 and the quality is superb - as good as the newer ones. Also the single coated older lenses have a bit warmer colour (if you like that).<br>

The 135mm f/2.8 Ai-S lenses are currently overpriced due to the 'Angry Photographer' who has a YouTube channel which tests the older lenses telling the world how good they are. This leaves the older 135mm f/2.8 lenses at a bargain price because he does not rate those. They will also likely need Ai converting.<br>

If I were searching for a 135mm lens now I would personally go for one of the 'off' brand lenses that have a very good reputation. Honestly, the difference between a mint used $50 Hoya brand 135mm f/2.8 and a Nikkor is not that great at all. One has just sold for £25 with free postage I see. Amazing! I had one and they are great. Hoya is famous for their good glass. The common Tamron 135mm f/2.5 is not so great - results are a bit flat and not as good as the Nikkor.<br>

Anyway, I do feel that a 135mm prime has a place in a travel kit. It sounds a bit useless and redundant 'when a zoom does the same thing' but once you get that lens on photos almost find themselves - details, street scenes and portraits.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>Ian has nailed it, and I'd only add that the E series lenses are pretty good for the money, and many of them have plastic bodies, which cuts weight quite a bit, and they are unusually compact--great for travel--so you can have a cheap, light Nikon-brand lens, if that turns you on. I have one of the early 135mm non-AIs that is big and heavy, and no matter how much you think you don't care about size and weight, this lens will change your mind!</p>

<p>Another reason to buy later lenses is that overall they will likely be more clean internally, and possibly won't need a CLA as much as the older ones. CLA is around $100+. </p>

<p>You may need the speed of the 2.8, otherwise you might consider the 135/3.5; I have an AI version which is small, light, and very sharp (used on a D800).</p>

<p>I'll chime in that I've had really good results with a Vivitar 135/2.8. In fact, it pretty well nails everything my other 135 lenses do, with one exception, and that is a Leica Tele-Elmar f4...which outdoes the others (I often use the lens head in adapters for my SLR bodies).</p>

<p>I have handy AI 135/2.8 and 3.5 versions, there is little weight and size difference. The 135/2.8 QC pre-AI I also have is larger and heavier. A very quick evaluation indicates that the AI 2.8 is the sharpest, followed closely by the pre-AI 2.8. The AI3.5 seems very slightly softer on my D810 at 3.5 vs 2.8 on the others, all quickly evaluated wide open. There probably is not much difference at all when they are stopped down. The older Pre-AI 2.8 has a little more color fringing that shows up at 100%</p>

<p>The Pre-AI seems a little easier to focus accurately on the D810</p>

<p>I have all the 135/2.8 from the Nikkor-Q NON AI, a factory converted AI Nikkor-Q.C, the AI and the AI-S. All of them sharp lenses, how ever the oldest Nikkor-Q has slightly warmer image, which I prefer the most. The old Nikkor-Q is a mechanical master pice, solid like a tank and heavy like a tank. The AI and AI-S lenses are smaller and lighter. Up to you which ever you chose. I like to shoot most of the time with the Nikkor-Q. Converting the NON AI to AI is very easy. It is worth the conversion if you don't have a Nikon Df camera. With the Df, you don't even need to convert it.</p>

<p>I have both a 135mm f/3.5 AI and 135mm f/2.8 AIS. The f/3.5 is a little sharper in the corners but the same in the center as the f/2.8. It is also a <em>good bit</em> cheaper and a little lighter. If the 2/3 stop difference is not a big deal for you, I would go with the f/3.5 AIS instead.</p>

<p>A late suggestion, but if f/3.5 is adequate then I'd forget the fixed 135mm and get a Series E 75-150mm f/3.5 Zoom. Its IQ can easily compete with any 135mm prime and it's just as compact and light - and much more versatile as a travel lens.</p>

I know this is older thread, but for those looking for information...

 

FWIW, I believe the "Q" on this lens 135mm barrel means "5" elements.

FWIW, I believe the "Q" on this lens 135mm barrel means "5" elements.

 

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).

I have been wanting the 135mm f2 lens. Is an updated version available? Camera store people say the optical design has never changed. Anyone use this? How is it?

I have been wanting the 135mm f2 lens. Is an updated version available? Camera store people say the optical design has never changed. Anyone use this? How is it?

 

I only know of two Nikon 135mm f/2s-the AI-s and the autofocus DC version.

 

I have one of the former around here-it was bought cheap because the focus was gummed nearly solid. It worked well the few times I used it(at infinity), but it's currently in pieces and I can't get the helical back together...My brief experience was good, but it is a heavy and chunky lens. Most folks seem to have a high opinion of this lens.

 

The DC lens is something of a specialty lens-the "DC" part of the name is supposed to allow you some control over the bokeh. I've never seen a 135mm in person, but I've played with(and nearly bought) the 105mm f/2 DC, which works more or less the same. They have a ring that you turn to a position to match the set aperture, and it affects the OOF rendering either in front of or behind the point of focus(you decide which depending on which way you turn the DC ring). The effect is very subtle but pleasing to my eye, and from my limited amount of play with it you can get a bit of a soft focus effect by moving the DC ring past where you're "supposed to"(as per the set aperture).

 

With that said, the 135mm version gets some mixed reviews around here, although at least one prominent blogger absolutely loves it and claims it's sharp as can be with the DC ring set to 0(admittedly there are few Nikon lenses that this particular individual doesn't declare the sharpest he's ever used...). It's a pricey lens, though, even used(usually ~$1K from dealers like KEH). Also, it is an older "screwdriver" lens, which means that it won't autofocus on lower end DX bodies or with the FTZ adapter on the Z mount cameras. It will autofocus on all AF film cameras, all FX DSLRs, and higher end DX DSLRs(D7500 and D500 of the current line-up, going a bit further back all D7x00, all single digit and 3 digit models, and the D50, D70, D80, and D90).

 

Honestly, I think that a 3rd party option is probably best. At the "low" end you have the Samyang, which a bit under $500 new. It gets reviewed very favorably, although I'll avoid commenting too much on it as I've never seen one in person and haven't read up a whole lot on it. My curiosity will get the better of me and I'll probably buy one some day. It is a manual focus lens, and I can't seem to find a clear answer on whether or not it has a CPU(this makes a difference when it comes to AE on modern SLRs and DSLRs, and even metering on some lower end cameras).

 

At the other end of manual focus, you have the Zeiss version, which is excellent but also around $2K new($1K used from what I've seen).

 

Also worth consideration if you're using a DSLR or newish SLR(something like an F5, F6, or F100) is the Sigma ART 135mm f/2. The ART lenses are pretty universally recognized as excellent, and you'll find many long-time Nikon shooters who have conceded to adding at least one ART lens to their camera bags. The 135mm doesn't seem as popular as some of the other ART lenses(esp. the 35mm f/1.4) but it's also one of the newer ones in the line-up and from what I've seen is every bit as good as the others.

T hanks for a carefully reasoned and thorough reply. I will have a look at the Sigma.

The Nikkor 135/2 debuted in 1976, originally as a non-Ai lens. Not long after that, the Ai series was introduced. I had a factory converted 135/2. Big and heavy, I traded it and picked up a Vivitar 135/2.3 for $60 which features floating optics.

Could I also pipe up with suggestion? I shoot film and digital BTW.

 

How about the Nikkor 50-135mm 3.5 AIS zoom? Prices seem to have gone down and in an era of camera set ISO s retaining excellent pictorial quality, the 3.5 constant aperture should not be a problem. Pixel peepers might say the 75-150mm E zoom is slightly better and lighter. But I got the AIS zoom after seeing the pictures by John Shaw using it and it delivers the goods. Even when I've used it wide open, quality has been more than good enough. The zoom is very crisp at all apertures and focal lengths. Colour rendition is fine.

 

The prices however of even the E 135mm lenses just seem to be silly in my view. I have also just managed to find a 6T dioptre lens for the zoom and getting used to that and I must say it makes for a very flexible set up as Bjorn suggests. The lens has a good reputation online with most people.

 

My only problem is my FM3a that I use the lens on. It seems to have gone on the blink (although my trusty FM2N is holding the fort). I will post about my problems later. The FM3a has hardly been thrashed!

I have been wanting the 135mm f2 lens. Is an updated version available? Camera store people say the optical design has never changed. Anyone use this? How is it?

 

I've owned the 135mm f/2 AIS and now have the 135mm f/2 AF DC, agree with Ben's excellent and thorought reply, but want to add a short comment. The AIS version is a joy to use. The solid feel when turning the focus ring and the way the image snaps into focus makes for a lovely experience. That said, it's sharpest around f/5.6, and nice for portraits at wider apertures. The 135mm f/2 AF DC is sharper (with DC set at zero, of course) and an excellent portrait lens, just not as sharp as my 70-200mm f/4 AFS at the same focal length. As Ben points out, it won't autofocus with the Nikon Z bodies, unless someone comes up with an F to Z adapter with a motor for AF.

The 135mn f/2 Samyang is superb, and yes it has a CPU (at least in Nikon fit), which obviates the need to enter non-CPU data into the camera, and allows body control of the aperture.

 

I bought one shortly after it was introduced, and the optical quality absolutely stunned me. I really can't imagine a better 135mm lens at any price.

 

Incidentally, the price at introduction was considerably lower than is currently asked, which probably reflects the great reputation that this lens has gained.

 

FWIW, I picked up a Tamron Adaptall 135mm f/2.5 at a charity shop for just a few pounds. At f/2.5 the design looks a bit stretched and image quality suffers, but click it down to f/2.8 and it's fine. It has image quality and contrast good enough for most purposes. So, to be honest, I don't think there's a really poor 135mm out there. It's a stock-in-trade focal length that most optical designers nailed years ago.

Edited January 30, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I use the 135 f3.5 ai with my FM3A. I used to own the 135 f2.8 ais and it too was a good lens. I only replaced it because while on vacation in Myrtle Beach I decided to change lenses to the 28-50 f3.5 ais and I dropped the lens onto the sand and then a wave soaked my lens with salty water. Once it dried out the focus was very stiff and gritty. Bought the f3.5 version on eBay because it was half the price of the f2.8.

My two cents. The 135 non-AI QC f2.8 is a nice lens. Sharp. I used to have the 135 f2 DC. It was very sharp, but finally decided the chromatic aberration was a little high. It was heavy also. I like the 50-135 3.5 AIS. It is sharp, and a useful zoom range. Not too heavy. The 75-150 series E (my copy) is a little less sharp on the D8XX series camera but a nice lens. I looked yesterday and saw the 135 f2.8 AIS for about $150 on ebay, so not too pricey. the older QC I have is less.

Ooops- had to go back and read for Nikon lenses 101. My 135 f2.8 QC is Ai.