View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
sky1174
Joined: 04 Nov 2009 Posts: 15
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:06 am Post subject: Nikon 135mm F3.5 Ai or M42 version |
|
|
sky1174 wrote:
I have a Nikon 135mm F3.5 Ai and just curious if 135mm M42 mount (takumar/vivitar/chinon) better than Ai version ? Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
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. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
larsr
Joined: 25 Jun 2009 Posts: 272 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
larsr wrote:
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 :) _________________ Lars
Bodies:
DSLR: Nikon D200
SLR: Nikon FA, Pentax Spotmatic SPII, Zeiss Ikon Icarex 35TM
35mm: Voigtl�nder Vitoret
Nikkor MF
24/2.8K AI'd, 28/2.8 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 Micro, 35-70/3.5 AIS, 85/1.8K AI'd, 100/2.8 Series E, 105/2.5 AI, 105/2.5 AIS, 135/3.5 AI, Nikkor 180/2.8 ED AIS, 200/4-Q AI'd, 300/4.5-H AI'd
M42
Misc: Vivitar 28/2.5, Chinon 28/2.8, Cosina Auto Cosinon 50/1.8, Revue Auto Revuenon 50/1.8, Mamiya 50/2, Auto Flex 55/1.7, Cosina Cosinon 135/2.8 MC, Vivitar 135/2.8, Petri 200/3.5 CC Auto
Zeiss: Carl Zeiss (Ikon) Tessar 50/2.8, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, CZJ Pancolar Electric 50/1.8 MC, CZJ Biotar 58/2 T, CZJ Sonnar MC S 135/3.5
Asahi-Pentax: SMC-Takumar 55/1.8, Super-Takumar 105/2.8, SMC-Takumar 135/3.5
USSR: Mir-1 37/2.8 (1958 GP), Helios 44-2 58/2
Pentacon/Meyer: Pentacon 29/2.8 MC, Pentacon 50/1.8 MC Electric, Meyer G�rlitz Oreston 50/1.8, Meyer G�rlitz Orestor 135/2.8, Pentacon 200/4
Nikkor AF
50/1.8 D, 60/2.8 Micro, 55-200/4-5.6 G VR, 70-300/4-5.6 ED, 18-70/3.5-4.5 G
Wantlist
Nikkor 105/1.8, Nikkor 135/2
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
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. _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
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. _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
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 _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterm1
Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 224
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterm1 wrote:
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. _________________ PeterM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
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. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|