View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 979 Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:45 pm Post subject: Nikkor Q 135mm f2.8 first look |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
There's what it looks like there.
Images are un-manipulated except for re-size.
F5.6 at ISO 400, D-810.
Contrast is a bit low.
I'm not sure if this is the early single coated glass causing it, or the slight fungus inside the lens.
Daylight was getting a bit thin here too, just minutes before sun-down.
Moving indoors at closer distances reveals a capable lens.
f5.6 at ISO 1600.
Wide open at f2.8 and ISO 400 here.
Successive crops show reasonable sharpness here.
I like the rendering and color handling a lot.
I have it's little brother f3.5 version here, and should run a comparative side by side test...
-D.S. _________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wolan wrote:
_________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
The Nikkor Q 2.8/135mm is large and heavy (nearly as heavy as my Canon nFD 2/135mm!), but it is as sharp as later 2.8/135mm Nikkors. Given its age it is certainly one of the better 2.8/135mm lenses out there.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I agree with Steve. The hot ticket, though, is the 135 QC -- the "C" stands for multicoating. Otherwise, it's identical to the "Q".
Doc mentioned the 135/3.5. I dunno if the optical formulae are the same, but I owned an AI 135/3.5 back in the 90s and that thing was tack sharp. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 979 Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
I agree with Steve. The hot ticket, though, is the 135 QC -- the "C" stands for multicoating. Otherwise, it's identical to the "Q".
Doc mentioned the 135/3.5. I dunno if the optical formulae are the same, but I owned an AI 135/3.5 back in the 90s and that thing was tack sharp. |
The Q 135 3.5 and the A/I 135 3.5 are different computations with the Q being 4/3 and the A/I being 4/4.
The C series lenses were very nice indeed.
I had a QC 200 (?) that I sold off simply because the A/I 200 was a lot easier for me to focus with.
Personally, I think the older lenses were built better than the A/I series, but that's just me.
I find the focus and aperture rings much smoother in actual picture taking use.
At 610 gr., the 135 2.8 Q is no fly weight.
I'm still getting used to using it, and will likely have a bit more on it later on.
The locking no rattle built in hood on it finds high favor with me.
-D.S. _________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
flavio81
Joined: 20 Mar 2022 Posts: 35 Location: Lima, Peru
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
flavio81 wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
I agree with Steve. The hot ticket, though, is the 135 QC -- the "C" stands for multicoating. Otherwise, it's identical to the "Q".
Doc mentioned the 135/3.5. I dunno if the optical formulae are the same, but I owned an AI 135/3.5 back in the 90s and that thing was tack sharp. |
It's a different formula. I also liked the AI 135/3.5, tack sharp. Similar to the Carl Zeiss Jenna MC Sonnar 135/3.5, which is excellent.
My Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 was also sharp but it had noticeably less contrast. And this one is a sonnar formula unlike the AI. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|