Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,231   Posts: 1,532,890   Online: 1016
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    As far as Nikkor lenses are concerned, I have yet to use a lens better than the 105/2.5. Mine is of non-AI NPK vintage. This lens will mount nicely to your F4. Its build quality is as beautiful as the photographs it produces.

    I should add that the 135/3.5 is a very close second. This lens can be had for almost nothing.
    Last edited by FilmOnly; 06-08-2012 at 09:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    Jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmOnly View Post
    As far as Nikkor lenses are concerned, I have yet to use a lens better than the 105/2.5. Mine is of non-AI NPK vintage. This lens will mount nicely to your F4. Its build quality is as beautiful as the photographs it produces.

    I should add that the 135/3.5 is a very close second. This lens can be had for almost nothing.
    Theses are quite popular on here, I'll hunt them down. Thanks!

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah Valley
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    273
    I agree about the 135mm f/3.5. I have the Non AI Nikkor Q version and it is stellar. The design actually predates the Nikon F, and similar (if not identical) optics are found in the S mount (rangefinder) version. It only has four elements which I believe gives photos a different look than more complex formulas.

    None of the various versions ever achieved Legend status like the 105mm f/2.5, probably because of the modest maximum aperture and low price.

  4. #24
    OldBodyOldSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    I had a beautiful, in like-new condition, Nikkor Q Auto 135/3.5 that had gorgeous blue coating. It was just heaven to hold and use and was incredibly sharp even wide open. I think it was my sharpest lens, and I had some pretty sharp ones (28/2.8 ais, 35/1.4 among others). Problem was that it also liked to tell me, over and over again, how many aperture blades it had ("Look, I've got six aperture blades! That's six! S-I-X! Yeah buddy, 6! Look here and here and here and here and here and here and also here and here and now I'll throw some there too..."). It was a bloody hexagonfest.
    Sold it for $55, which was a shame and I shouldn't have done it.

    It's a fantastic lens if you can make it shut up, which I couldn't.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah Valley
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    273
    Huh, my Q has seven blades (s/n 934xxx). My God it is sharp. I first realized its greatness when I shot some zebras at the zoo with b&w film.

    I dropped this lens on an asphalt road one time, right on the nose (my dog pulled at his leash when I was changing lenses). The lens cap shattered, but the lens wasn't phased--save for a dent in the filter ring.

  6. #26
    Jenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by OldBodyOldSoul View Post
    I had a beautiful, in like-new condition, Nikkor Q Auto 135/3.5 that had gorgeous blue coating. It was just heaven to hold and use and was incredibly sharp even wide open. I think it was my sharpest lens, and I had some pretty sharp ones (28/2.8 ais, 35/1.4 among others). Problem was that it also liked to tell me, over and over again, how many aperture blades it had ("Look, I've got six aperture blades! That's six! S-I-X! Yeah buddy, 6! Look here and here and here and here and here and here and also here and here and now I'll throw some there too..."). It was a bloody hexagonfest.
    Sold it for $55, which was a shame and I shouldn't have done it.

    It's a fantastic lens if you can make it shut up, which I couldn't.
    Ah hahahaha!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    This is excellent commentary here. I have used both the 105/2.5 and 135/3.5 extensively. "Stellar" is the prefect way to describe them. I was shocked when I noted excellent wide open performance in the 135/3.5. The 105/2.5 is nice wide open, too, but the 135/3.5 seems a "hair" better. Indeed, the modest maximum aperture in these lenses, as in others, really helps. These lens designs just have very few compromises, and the proof is in the performance.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I have a 105/2.5 AI on the way (to use on my F4s, as the AI will offer matrix metering). It will be interesting to see if there is a difference in performance when comparing the non-AI to the AI version.

    I am thinking of adding the 135/3.5 AI version (again, for the matrix capability). Any views on the performance here?

  9. #29
    OldBodyOldSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by LJSLATER View Post
    Huh, my Q has seven blades (s/n 934xxx). My God it is sharp. I first realized its greatness when I shot some zebras at the zoo with b&w film.

    I dropped this lens on an asphalt road one time, right on the nose (my dog pulled at his leash when I was changing lenses). The lens cap shattered, but the lens wasn't phased--save for a dent in the filter ring.
    Your Q is a later version
    http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#135

    I was a bit surprised when I picked it up the first time because I was expecting lots of heft. For its size it's quite light, actually.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin