Nikon AIS 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 - Any good?"

[hendy_assan]

I am in the midst of purchasing an F3HP bundled with the 35-135mm AIS

lens. Not much information about it on the net except same optic with

the AF and not too bad performance wise. Try to buy the body only but

the seller prefer to sell it as a set. Appreciate any comments on the

lens.

[jim_helleck1]

I would pass on this lens. Give a reasonable offer on the F-3. If the seller balks, there are many out there to be had. I would much preffer a constant aperture zoom. I just sold an FM3a with a 35-70 AIS 3.5 constant that was a fantastic lens for a zoom but unfortunetly not much range.

[tri-x1]

The 35-135mm can be good or not very good. Seems to be inconsistant as far as quality is concerned. I had one that was decent but awfully heavy. I actually preferred the results I got from a Tokina 35-135 but the build wasn't as good.

[alan_wilder1]

I had a mint AIS version and paid $200, later sold it without any financial loss, maybe a tiny profit. I'd rate it's performance as good, nothing to write home about but works well if you're restricted to just one lens. For outstanding imaging you'd be better served with a 50~135/3.5 Nikkor (or possibly the 75~150/3.5 Nikon Series E AIS) and a 35/2 Nikkor or possibly the 28~50/3.5 Nikkor.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Instead going to the bar spending 25-100 dollar a night, I buying old Nikon lenses, to play with it, to check them out on digital cameras, D300 & D700 (and even on the D40 ) when I have an instant image to analyze on a 24" LaCie color calibrated monitor. I recently get the 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 and I cal tell, this lens as good as any consumer end AF plastic or, better. The lens is solid, metal build, very nice looking lens, and the range just perfect to average photography. You can cover everything, and if you cary in you packet a small 24mm prime lens you are 100% perfect to go. The lens, the copy I had, producing reasonable sharp images, and if you are not planing to blown-up to poster size, just 8x10 ors slightly bigger, the lens is sharp enough. yesterday I received a AF 35-70/2.8 lens, well used, a couple of light scratches on the front element, and mounted on the D700 and taken some images, then grabbed my 2000.00 (incl.tax) dollar AF-S 24-70/2.8 and shoot the same image immediately, same subject, same lighting. The only difference I could see on the images, 35-70 vers. 24-70 vas, only a color difference, because I was lazy to remove the polarizer from the 24-70. Both image vas tic sharp. The same stories I had with the AF 70-210/4-5.6 lens and my AF-S 80-200/2.8. Actually, I sold the AF-S 80-200/2.8 after that. It was a pain to cary anyway. My biggest surprise vas the 43-86/3.5 with very, very bed reputation. I get a black nosed, S.# 8.......... and the lens turned out very sharp. I could have more to wright, but to make short, the old lenses very good and mach better build as a new flimsy plastics to day. Of cause, the camera stores don't going to tell you this. they want to sell you the latest the newest. It is not business to sell you a used AF 70-210/3,5-4.5 lens for 150-170 dollar, when they can sell you a equivalent lens for 1700.00 dollar. And, . . . it is not the lens or camera whom make a good image, it is you, if you know, how to use your equipments.</p>