Nikkor 135mm f2.8

[peterm1]

Hi I am looking for some advice.

I have a Nikkor 135mm f2.8. One of those lovely old pre-Ai "Q" ones that I want to convert to AI so as to use on my Nikon D200. I like this lens very much and have good results in an adapter on a 4/3 camera but the truth is it deserves to be used on a Nikon. I want to disassemble the rear of the lens to undertake the operation myself. The actual cutting of the AI notch is easy enough as I have researched where the notch must be positioned and have the tools and skills to accurately remove the few millimeters thickness of material needing to be machined off.

But dis-assembly and reassembly is another matter. It seems easy - position the aperture at maximum and then carefully unscrew the screws holding the rear assembly in place. But I have found that even after unscrewing the assembly will not lift from the barrel of the lens and it is also devilishly hard to keep everything aligned properly.

I have dis-assmbled a 50mm f2 successfully before to install a store bought AI conversion kit but this seems different. Does anyone have any pointers or do you know of a source of advice on the internet?

Thanks in advance.

[horvlas]

Hello. Try this link:

http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/repair/aimod/aimod.htm

[cooltouch]

Also try these guys:

http://bww.kyphoto.com/classics/

Check out their repair forum and try posting your query there.

Back in the early 90s, I converted quite a few non-AI lenses to AI by buying the aperture rings from Nikon and installing them myself. But that's been so long ago, the procedure is rather hazy now. I do recall, though, that some lenses were very easy to AI whereas others were fairly tricky.

Best,

Michael

[Photomac]

Hello there,
I recently removed the rear element from a Nikkor 135 f2.0, for cleaning, and found that the stop-down lever has a bend in it within the lens body, which will only clear the internal structure of the lens with the lens set to closest focus, that is with the lens assembly as far forwards as possible.

Don't know about the f2.8, but hope this helps.

regards

Angus

[peterm1]

Thank you for your responses. I do recall now that when I converted the 50mm f2 I had problems realigning everything so that the correct aperture appeared based on what was showing on the aperture ring (even if I was careful NOT to move the ring when I disassmbled.) I eventually succeeded perhaps more by good luck than by good management.

With this particular lens I have found that it does not want to allow the "guts" of the lens to lift out of the body shell. I suspect the reason may be the issue that Photomac describes - that there is a bend in the fork / lever controlling the stop down aperatus (or some such similar issue) and I need to change the focus fo the lens first. The problem is that until you remove the innards you cannot see how they are designed and hence understand the problem.

Any further ideas would also be appreciated. I will get back to the lens later tonight or tommorrow to try again.

The actual cutting of the AI notch does not appear too difficult, especially as I have a 24mm f2.8 which can be used as a template as well as various web references explaining how to find the required position for the notch.


It certainly is not straightforward as one would expect. ...... Particularly if you want to get it all back together again :^)

One good thing comes from this process..... I have amongst my belongings an old 50mm f1.4 which is a pre AI version. I have always used this on an old Nikkormat so never studied it too closely. I had assumed it was still in its native pre AI form as the "rabbit ears" were not reversed as is typical with an AI lens. But on looking at it more closely I found that it does in fact have a very neatly cut AI notch and on trying it on my D200 found it works perfectly. (This was not a full blown Nikon conversion where the aperture control ring is changed to an AI one but a very carefully, well performed home modification.)

I spent some time on the weekend taking shots with it and typical of these earlier lens found it produces lovely images except when shooting against the light where there is a lot more flair than with modern versions. (I have an AIS version of the same lens so was able to check the performance of the two directly. Maybe I should post some examples here to compare one against the other.)

[Esox lucius]

I knew from many sources I've heard and read that this is a great lens, just as the 135/3.5 that followed it. Still, I was positively surprised when I got my first minutes of use with it.

Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 Q (serial 348xxx, dates at 1973)
custom Ai modification (factory kit #44 is not available anymore)



Some test shots, this is a 100% crop of the lower right corner, this is taken at wide open aperture



Usable for large prints already wide open, almost no vignetting on full frame wide open (absolutely none from f/4), no CA, no distortion - and these lenses sell on eBay for 20-40 EUR! Ai modification, eBay and postage totalled 94 EUR for me, would have been less if found in a local store already Ai-modified of course.

f/2.8

link to original size, click ALL SIZES button
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3598219030/in/set-72157619282386206

f/4

link to original size, click ALL SIZES button
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3597408479/in/set-72157619282386206

f/2.8

link to original size, click ALL SIZES button
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3597415133/in/set-72157619282386206

f/4

link to original size, click ALL SIZES button
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3598221234/in/set-72157619282386206

f/2.8

link to original size, click ALL SIZES button
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3598226226/in/set-72157619282386206/

f/4

link to original size, click ALL SIZES button
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3598224898/in/set-72157619282386206

If you have one, keep it. If you don't, get one before the price climbs where to it belongs.

[parabellumfoto]

This is where I should have posted. Sorry about the mistake.

[parabellumfoto]

I would like to ask the experienced here what they think of this image.

This was shot at a distance of around 6 metre so it's not quite sharp. It's in focus, but it looks soft to me and does not even go near in comparison to what the Nikkor 50mm F2 could do. Also it was shot in low light as the area was quite shaded. I also did not use a tripod and was forced to use a high shutter speed (250 I think) so my ISO was 400. From memory the aperture was at f2.8.

The 100% crop does not look good to me. -



My previous sample of this lens shows that it's quite good at close distance. But anything past 2 metres I'm finding it difficult to focus and can't get the sharpness of my 50mm.

What I'd like to know is if this is normal or should I be able to get a sharper image than the example shown above from this lens.

[Esox lucius]

It's underexposed and misfocused, ie. not suitable for judging your lens' performance due to technical mistakes in exposure.

[parabellumfoto]

[Esox lucius]

"not accurate portrayal of event" mmkay, I know of this school who says everything should be photographed as it is.

I just don't believe in it, the camera does not see the World as we do and staying within "accuracy" isn't exactly what photography is about (long exposures, motion freeze, capturing action, flattering subject with proper use of flash, showing detail the eye cannot see etc. etc.).

Put your camera and the Nikkor-Q on a sturdy tripod, open lens wide open, choose a decently (or well) lit subject >1.5m from focal plane (Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 close focus limit is 1.5m), focus accurately with live-view, re-focus and re-shoot a couple of times. Then judge your images at 100% and make assessments of whether your copy is good or requires service.

This lens is very good, I still use it with D800 and maybe I'm lucky but the copy I have performs up to professional standards even wide open.

[parabellumfoto]

[parabellumfoto]

A juvenile wild Long Billed Corella.





I had mild reservations that something was wrong with this lens but this confirms that it's the photographer to blame -

I'm happy with this lens. It doesn't handle the sun all too well but the colour, contrast, bokeh and sharpness is quite good. Wide open it's soft but at f4 it gets markedly better.

ISO 200
F4
1/500

[luisalegria]

This is one Nikkor that I have kept to use with my Pentax DSLR.
I have resold other Nikkors I have acquired over the years, including the famous 105mm
And I have some of the Nikon E lenses that are a set with my Nikon FM.
But I don't use them on the Pentax.
But for the Nikkor Q 135/2.8 I have no better substitute.

[parabellumfoto]

[parabellumfoto]

I'm still having problems with this lens in low light and at distances of 10m or greater. I can't get proper focus. I don't know if that's because of me (I suspect it is) or the lens.

Aside from that issue I am absolutely blown away by the colour and detail this lens can produce. Still not as sharp as the Nikkor 50mm F2 but it's a damn good lens!

[BuJi]

Is there a really big difference between the ais 135mm f2.0 and the f2.8?
(And yes, i like good bokeh)