novum
Well-known
This lens seems to be either uncommon or unloved. 
Anybody out there in Evil SLR land have one? And, more important, do you have an opinion on it? I piggybacked this question within another thread, but I thought it might be a better idea to start another thread.
And yes, I know the 105/2.5 in all its guises is THE lens, but I'm curious about the 135.
Anybody out there in Evil SLR land have one? And, more important, do you have an opinion on it? I piggybacked this question within another thread, but I thought it might be a better idea to start another thread.And yes, I know the 105/2.5 in all its guises is THE lens, but I'm curious about the 135.
Evanjoe610
Established
I guess by answering, it will reveal that I'm an EVIL SLR user too! I have the the original 135mmF3.5, the 135mmF2.8 (for faster aperature), and the 135mmF2.0 (i couldn't resist the deal!!) All 3 lenses are SUPER Sharp, especially the 135mm F35 & 2.8.
For all extreme low light condition shooting, I use the 135mmF2.0 when the need arises. Mind you do need a steady hand or tripod to get the most from this lens
For all extreme low light condition shooting, I use the 135mmF2.0 when the need arises. Mind you do need a steady hand or tripod to get the most from this lens
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I own several 135's, the 2.8 and 2.0... but seldom use them. Probably because I started with the 105/2.5 and then added the 180/2.8 as the next logical step.
Both of my lenses are very capable, with the 135/2.0 being scathingly sharp. I tend to use the 135/2.0 the most, albeit when I need a fast telephoto for low-light work.
Neither of my 135's yield the same beautiful rendering of portraits that my 105/2.5 does so the 135's do not see a lot of use.
Both of my lenses are very capable, with the 135/2.0 being scathingly sharp. I tend to use the 135/2.0 the most, albeit when I need a fast telephoto for low-light work.
Neither of my 135's yield the same beautiful rendering of portraits that my 105/2.5 does so the 135's do not see a lot of use.
cmdrzed
wallflower
I, too, have the 135 F3.5 AI lens and have been extremely pleased with it. It is sharp and I consistently get good prints from it. Mine was purchased from KEH at bargain level for something like $35. It was in much better condition that bargain and stays on my FE most of the time. If you need the extra speed for low light then the 2 or 2.8 would probably give you good results as well.
The 135/3.5 remained a Sonnar formula lens for its entire run.
The 135/2.8 went through a major redesign with the "Integrated Coating" series, right before becoming AI'd. It is more compact than the 135/2.8 Nikkor-Q and Nikkor 135/2.8 Nikkor-QC. It is also sharper.
The 135/2.8 went through a major redesign with the "Integrated Coating" series, right before becoming AI'd. It is more compact than the 135/2.8 Nikkor-Q and Nikkor 135/2.8 Nikkor-QC. It is also sharper.
peterm1
Veteran
I bought an AIS version of the f2.8 135mm lens recently and have found it to be both very solidly built (as one would expect of Nikon lenses, especially in that era ) and sharp and well behaved optically. The later AI / AIs versions are regarded as optically better than the pre AI version which was a physically larger lens with a different optical design. While I am perfectly aware that the lens receives mixed reviews I can only think that those who are being negative about it are doing so by comparison with the 105mm f2.5 which is universally regarded as a classic lens in every sense of the word. Having said that I would not be inclined to criticise the lens - it shoots better than I can even though it may be technically slightly inferior to its 105mm cousin!
Incidentally I also own the pre AI model which some write off although I have also seen some very good assessments of this lens. Mine is presently in parts as I pulled it to pieces recently to convert it to AI so I could mount it on my D200 and run a test against its later cousin. When I get around to it I should post the results.
Incidentally I also own the pre AI model which some write off although I have also seen some very good assessments of this lens. Mine is presently in parts as I pulled it to pieces recently to convert it to AI so I could mount it on my D200 and run a test against its later cousin. When I get around to it I should post the results.
Last edited:
novum
Well-known
Fabuloso! Thanks for your collective interesting and helpful input.
Bill58
Native Texan
I would opt for the Nikkor 75-150/ 3.5E AI-s/ HN 21 hood as being more versitile and it has spectacular optics/ build quality. I got one and I luv it.
Bill
Bill
Last edited:
newspaperguy
Well-known
Another happy 135/2.8 user. Mine is a pre-Ai, that was converted.:angel:
Heavy, built like a tank, self-contained hood that locks out of play.
Hard not to like this lens...
Heavy, built like a tank, self-contained hood that locks out of play.
Hard not to like this lens...
HarryW
Established
Noticed that Bill recommended a 75-150 zoom.
A number of years ago I bought a Nikkor Zoom 50-135 mm f3.5 AIs and it was very useful especially at the 100 - 135 end. Felt that it needed to be stopped down to 5.6 to get the absolute best out of it but still very good at f3.5.
After a while decided that a zoom was not for me and passed it on to my daughter.
Regards
Harry
A number of years ago I bought a Nikkor Zoom 50-135 mm f3.5 AIs and it was very useful especially at the 100 - 135 end. Felt that it needed to be stopped down to 5.6 to get the absolute best out of it but still very good at f3.5.
After a while decided that a zoom was not for me and passed it on to my daughter.
Regards
Harry