MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
DiskFreeVault safely moves Mac apps and data to external storage.
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Nikon 135mm F3.5 Ai or M42 version
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:06 am
Post subject: Nikon 135mm F3.5 Ai or M42 version
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:06 am
Post subject: Nikon 135mm F3.5 Ai or M42 version
Reply
I have a Nikon 135mm F3.5 Ai and just curious if 135mm M42 mount (takumar/vivitar/chinon) better than Ai version ? Thanks


Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:12 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:12 am
Post subject:
Reply
The original non-Ai Nikkor 135/3.5 was a classic Sonnar design, a Jena Sonnar 135/3.5 in disguise. The Ai and Ai-S are supposed to be an improvement over the old lens. That said, the original Nikkor was pretty damn good (I have one, it is s-h-a-r-p), so your Ai version should be even better.

I don't think any third party options will offer anything over your Nikkor except for speed. Say, a Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 will be an improvement. Most 135/2.8 versions aren't worth bothering though.


Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Here are some test pictures from my Nikkor 135/3.5 AI.
I find this lens amazing in every possible way - there is no vignetting whatsoever, CA is virtually non-existent too - and it's razorsharp already wide open. The bokeh is also very pleasing.

I have a Sonnar 135/3.5 too, but haven't had too much time to test it. Based on preliminary results, however, it does have an equally pleasing quality in bokeh, and is sharp too - but does not paint as vibrantly as it's Nikkor counterpart.

I've also got a Cosinon 135/2.8 and am looking for a Pentacon 135/2.8 to add up, but they are not directly comparable to the Nikkor or Sonnar.

If you're into manual lenses and can get a Pentacon or something for small money, I'd consider purchasing :)


Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:49 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:49 am
Post subject:
Reply
aoleg wrote:
The original non-Ai Nikkor 135/3.5 was a classic Sonnar design, a Jena Sonnar 135/3.5 in disguise. The Ai and Ai-S are supposed to be an improvement over the old lens. That said, the original Nikkor was pretty damn good (I have one, it is s-h-a-r-p), so your Ai version should be even better.


It isn't clear that the later one is better. I have the f/2.8 version - so, after the redesign to 5 elements in 4 groups (its a late type K, predating AI by a year) and, while OK, its not that great. My 105/2.5 is better, for example.

I hear that some people like the Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 better than the 135/2.8.


Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:01 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:01 am
Post subject:
Reply
ChrisLilley wrote:
It isn't clear that the later one is better. I have the f/2.8 version - so, after the redesign to 5 elements in 4 groups (its a late type K, predating AI by a year) and, while OK, its not that great. My 105/2.5 is better, for example.

I hear that some people like the Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 better than the 135/2.8.


Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 was a dog. However, the new, redesigned version of 135/2.8 available in Ai and Ai-S versions is quite good for what it is. I would rate it about as high as the 105/2.5. Depends on what you use it for though; I mostly use 135mm for tight portrait shots, and for that it's great.

BTW, I am waiting for a K version of Nikkor 135/3.5 to arrive. Multicoated, it should give the Sonnar a run for its money.


Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
aoleg wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
I have the f/2.8 version - so, after the redesign to 5 elements in 4 groups (its a late type K, predating AI by a year)


Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 was a dog. However, the new, redesigned version of 135/2.8 available in Ai and Ai-S versions


The type K is the same optical design as the AI and AIS, and different to the
Nikkor-Q 135/2.8.

aoleg wrote:
is quite good for what it is. I would rate it about as high as the 105/2.5.


Even ignoring the higher magnification of the 135 compared to the 105, I can see more detail in a shot taken with 105/2.5 than the same scene with 135/2.8.


Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I agree with Chris on the 105/2.5 vs the 135/2.8 AIS, but the latter lens is still an excellent performer. It's mainly that the 105 is stellar. I have the 135/2 and it is almost on a par with the 105.


patrickh


Post
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:59 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:59 am
Post subject:
Reply
aoleg wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
It isn't clear that the later one is better. I have the f/2.8 version - so, after the redesign to 5 elements in 4 groups (its a late type K, predating AI by a year) and, while OK, its not that great. My 105/2.5 is better, for example.

I hear that some people like the Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 better than the 135/2.8.


Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 was a dog. However, the new, redesigned version of 135/2.8 available in Ai and Ai-S versions is quite good for what it is. I would rate it about as high as the 105/2.5. Depends on what you use it for though; I mostly use 135mm for tight portrait shots, and for that it's great.

BTW, I am waiting for a K version of Nikkor 135/3.5 to arrive. Multicoated, it should give the Sonnar a run for its money.


I do not know that I can agree that the early Q version is a dog. I have both this version and the AIS. The latter is clearly a better lens but I have taken and seen many excellent shots with the older one too.


Post
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:09 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:09 am
Post subject:
Reply
peterm1 wrote:
I do not know that I can agree that the early Q version is a dog. I have both this version and the AIS. The latter is clearly a better lens but I have taken and seen many excellent shots with the older one too.


It's not that Nikkor-Q was necessrily a bad lens; just that there were many other 135/2.8 options that were better. It's really hard to make a bad 135mm; I've only seen two or three really bad ones out of dozens 135mm lenses.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1