Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon AIs 135mm f/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:46 pm    Post subject: Nikon AIs 135mm f/2.8 Reply with quote
I found this lens' price is pretty high, usually into $100-200 range. Can someone help me understand why this 135mm stands out? Just curious. Thanks.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Because it's good Laughing
I wouldn't pay $200 though, $150 tops.
And you can have similarly good Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 or Nikon E 100mm f/2.8 for less money if it's too expensive.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:
I found this lens' price is pretty high, usually into $100-200 range. Can someone help me understand why this 135mm stands out? Just curious. Thanks.


Alex TG wrote:
Because it's good Laughing


The reason is not because its good, but because you can mount it to "any" Nikon DSLR (well, the more expensive ones)! Most other vintage 2.8/135mm lenses (Canon FD, Konica AR, Leica R, Minolta MC/MD, Olympus Zuiko, Zeiss and Yashica CY) can only be used with an adapter, and on mirrorless cameras. While I have never tested a Nikkor Ai / AiS 2.8/135mm myself (too expensive ...), I don't think it is better than the corresponding Zeiss, Minolta, Canon FD or Konica AR lenses.

S


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a great performer, and also very small and light.

It's too expensive, but that's because of all the Nikon users.

Why does it stand out? Mostly because of the color saturation, tonality, and the beautiful puffy bokeh.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have an AI 135/2.8, but haven't tested or compared it extensively yet. My first impression is however, that contrast and saturation seem better than most other 135mm lenses. It deals pretty good with difficult lighting as well. All pictures I made with it untill now just turn out very nice. Mechanics are very good, size too and it had a build in hood. I paid 75€ for mine.

There's a guy on Youtube, called Theoria Apophasis, who has a lot of followers and he praised this lens. That probably partly explains the high prices. If you don't need the speed, the AI(s) 135/3.5 is probably an equally good lens.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
While I have never tested a Nikkor Ai / AiS 2.8/135mm myself

You definitely should Laughing
While compatibility may add a bit of value indeed, this lens really stands out among 135s.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the 135 f2.8 Q Auto. Haven't used it much 'cause it only mounts (non Ai) on a couple of my cameras. However the little use it's had show a nice color rendition,sharpness (in spite of a ding on front element) and solid build. A bit heavy with long focus throw but a nice little lens. Picked it up for $50 USD. Some day I'll get around to modifying for Ai so I can use it on more bodies.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alex TG wrote:
Because it's good Laughing
I wouldn't pay $200 though, $150 tops.
And you can have similarly good Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 or Nikon E 100mm f/2.8 for less money if it's too expensive.


I have a Nikon 135m f/3.5 for rangefinder; tried it out and didn't seem to stand out. The E 100/2.8 is said to be an excellent performer. I haven't tested mine.

stevemark wrote:


The reason is not because its good, but because you can mount it to "any" Nikon DSLR (well, the more expensive ones)! Most other vintage 2.8/135mm lenses (Canon FD, Konica AR, Leica R, Minolta MC/MD, Olympus Zuiko, Zeiss and Yashica CY) can only be used with an adapter, and on mirrorless cameras. While I have never tested a Nikkor Ai / AiS 2.8/135mm myself (too expensive ...), I don't think it is better than the corresponding Zeiss, Minolta, Canon FD or Konica AR lenses.

S

It is true with Nikon AI/AIs lenses. But to me, that alone doesn't seem to justify price with this lens, which makes me quite curious. I have the similar curiosity of the Minolta MD 75-150mm lens.

KEO wrote:
It's a great performer, and also very small and light. It's too expensive, but that's because of all the Nikon users. Why does it stand out? Mostly because of the color saturation, tonality, and the beautiful puffy bokeh.

Maybe some day I'll get a copy...

caspert79 wrote:
I have an AI 135/2.8, but haven't tested or compared it extensively yet. My first impression is however, that contrast and saturation seem better than most other 135mm lenses. It deals pretty good with difficult lighting as well. All pictures I made with it untill now just turn out very nice. Mechanics are very good, size too and it had a build in hood. I paid 75€ for mine.

There's a guy on Youtube, called Theoria Apophasis, who has a lot of followers and he praised this lens. That probably partly explains the high prices. If you don't need the speed, the AI(s) 135/3.5 is probably an equally good lens.

Good to hear your experience. I've had quite some 135mm's; two stand out (to my eyes) among f/2.5-2.8 being the Tamron 135mm f/2.8 preset and Tamrom 135mm f/2.5 CF. Will probably get a Sonnar 135mm f/3.5 to make a comparison. The guy on youtube is quite famous; I guess part of the reason why Sears/Rikenon 55mm/1.4 have high price is also due to him. Smile But I guess he is probably not aware there are at least three version of Sears/Rikenon 55mm/1.4 and they don't behave the same...

HansMoleman wrote:
I have the 135 f2.8 Q Auto. Haven't used it much 'cause it only mounts (non Ai) on a couple of my cameras. However the little use it's had show a nice color rendition,sharpness (in spite of a ding on front element) and solid build. A bit heavy with long focus throw but a nice little lens. Picked it up for $50 USD. Some day I'll get around to modifying for Ai so I can use it on more bodies.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I am collecting non Ai lenses. This one will be on my list...


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon made a pre-AI 135/2.8 QC I believe it is labeled. If you're after the pre-AI 135/2.8, this one is a better choice. The "C" stands for multi-coating, if I remember correctly. They're not as common as the Q's and cost a bit more, but they're probably worth it.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@Vivaldibow

Phillip Reeve has a review of the Minolta MD 75-150mm on his website. It seems to be a good performer.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Nikon made a pre-AI 135/2.8 QC I believe it is labeled. If you're after the pre-AI 135/2.8, this one is a better choice. The "C" stands for multi-coating, if I remember correctly. They're not as common as the Q's and cost a bit more, but they're probably worth it.


Thanks. Somehow I found Nikon's 135/2.8 is rarer than f/3.5. "C" should be for multi-coating.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
@Vivaldibow

Phillip Reeve has a review of the Minolta MD 75-150mm on his website. It seems to be a good performer.


The first time I heard about this lens is at dpreview and a fellow MF lens user said he got a good deal of this lens with $150 (if I remember correctly). I was quite surprised as these 2x zoom should be easy to design and there are quite some good performers. I think Steve probably has done some test showing why it is better than others.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:

I have a Nikon 135m f/3.5 for rangefinder; tried it out and didn't seem to stand out.

That's a different optical design. It's OK, but nothing special.
If you have Series E 100/2.8, try it. 135/2.8 is basically the same, just longer, built better and with the integrated lens hood.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
@Vivaldibow

Phillip Reeve has a review of the Minolta MD 75-150mm on his website. It seems to be a good performer.


The first time I heard about this lens is at dpreview and a fellow MF lens user said he got a good deal of this lens with $150 (if I remember correctly). I was quite surprised as these 2x zoom should be easy to design and there are quite some good performers. I think Steve probably has done some test showing why it is better than others.


I have tested a few vintage zoom in the 70-150mm range, along with quite a few 80-200/70-210 lenses. Two of the 70-150mm were really good:

* Canon nFD 4.5/70-150mm
* Minolta MD 4/75-150mm

The Minolta is slightly faster, quite a bit smaller, and 20% lighter than the Canon (440 g vs 540 g). And MFD is better (1.2 m instead of 1.5 m with the Canon).
The Canon may have a tad less CAs, and maybe slightly less contrast than the Minolta.

I would recommend expecially the Minolta for landscapes and hiking, since it's so small. Both lenses can be used wide open for landscapes. Distortion is visible at the respective long/short ends of the zoom range, and that's the main difference to the corresponding Minolta /Canon primes of its time.

EDIT: all tested with 24 MP FF cameras


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alex TG wrote:

That's a different optical design. It's OK, but nothing special.
If you have Series E 100/2.8, try it. 135/2.8 is basically the same, just longer, built better and with the integrated lens hood.

Hmm, I had thought the formula for 135mm/3.5 is the same for the rangefinder and SLR.
Since you said it, I am going to dig out the 100/2.8 and test it. Smile

stevemark wrote:


I have tested a few vintage zoom in the 70-150mm range, along with quite a few 80-200/70-210 lenses. Two of the 70-150mm were really good:

* Canon nFD 4.5/70-150mm
* Minolta MD 4/75-150mm



Thanks. I'll see if I can get a good deal on those two lenses. Very useful zoom range.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1