喜欢这全金属老头。顶一张。

大侠你好~我最近在这三支镜头上由于不决，尤其是35-105和35-135之间~请问能分析一下哪个好点吗？谢谢~

收了一个。非常喜欢。尤其微距功非常实用

35-105 AIS zoom advice
Amit Nandi , Jan 17, 2006; 03:40 p.m.

Just wondering if anyone has any opinions on this lens regarding sharpness, usability (weight), handling and build quality. I'm looking to buy one - also how much are these generally worth? Thanks.

Responses
Mark Peterson , Jan 17, 2006; 03:53 p.m.

I had one of these for a long time and made lots of nice images with it. Mine was a pretty decent performer optically - not the sharpest lens I've used, but very good.

The lens is small, lightweight, with a push-pull zoom control. Takes 52mm filters like a lot of the other AIS lenses. Excellent build quality with a metal barrel.

Today I'd consider US$150 for a used one in exc+ to mint condition to be a good buy. I wouldn't pay more than US$175 for one, they're rather plentiful at less than that (check keh_com for good current prices on AIS lenses). Good luck!

Wayne Cornell , Jan 17, 2006; 03:57 p.m.

some good info in this lens (and most Nikon lenses) here:

(link)

Matthew Currie , Jan 17, 2006; 06:25 p.m.

I have one. It's reasonably sharp, well constructed, and a nice focal length range, compact, and has moderate macro cabability. On the downside, mine also has a loose zoom barrel, and this can be a nuisance especially on a lens like this which is not parfocal, because if the zoom creeps the focus changes too. Because of this, I would not recommend it if you expect to use it much in macro mode, unless you are sure of getting one that does not creep, or are prepared to hold the zoom with tape or something from time to time. As a general carry-around zoom it's quite decent. I don't know what it should be worth these days, but you can probably get a pretty good idea from KEH listings.

BW Combs , Jan 17, 2006; 06:28 p.m.

KEH has several for sale, very reasonable.

I had one up until a year ago. I liked it a lot. Pretty sharp, tight zoom, and compact. Sold it with a slew of other MF gear to help defray the cost of digital.

You can probably pick one up for $90 to $140 US.

Claus Pawellek , Jan 18, 2006; 09:23 a.m.

Although the 35-105 isn't a bad performer I would go for the 50-135/3.5. Sharper and with constant aperture of 3.5. And that's for almost the same money.

Albert Smith , Jan 18, 2006; 09:38 a.m.

I used one for many years. My main lenses were a 35mm f/2.0 and 105mm f/2.5, so this zoom seemed like it would be a real work horse for me on my FE2 and F3 cameras.

The build quality was very good, and typical for that era of Nikkors. It was very precise and solid.

Optically, it was fine in the middle of the aperture ring. My primes were better at the wider apertures, but the zoom was a good "f/8 and be there" lens.

The weakness for me was the actual operation. First, the focus action was too gradual for my taste. It didn't snap into and out of focus, but oozed. This slow action and the darker finder meant that I was not as fast when focusing under adverse conditions. The real deal breaker for me was that push-button "macro" setting. For this lens, four feet was the minimum focus limit. To get closer, you then need to depress a small chrome button, and rotate yet one more ring. So now you are tweaking a zoom collar, a focus ring and a macro ring in various combinations to get the subject framed and in focus. For all of the so-called speed of a zoom over a prime, this multiple action process was very slow and it cost me many grab-type shots. With my 35mm prime lens, I am always coming well inside of 4 feet, so this zoom was a problem for my way of working.

Matthew Currie , Jan 18, 2006; 10:58 a.m.

I agree that the macro setting is ergonomically clumsy, and if your interest in this lens is as a macro, then I'd definitely look elsewhere. The macro feature is a useful adjunct for the occasional "hey look at that bug" shot, but if you're using it a lot it can be annoying.

It's a nice lens for walking around without a case full of equipment or pockets full of lenses, and it's optically good enough not to spoil an otherwise good shot.

Back to top
Contribute a response
       
Response:
Rich Text AreaToolbar Bold (Ctrl+B) Italic (Ctrl+I)  Undo (Ctrl+Z) Redo (Ctrl+Y)  Insert/Edit Link Unlink Insert/Edit Image  Insert/Remove Bulleted List Insert/Remove Numbered List Block Quote  Check Spelling Edit HTML Source  



本帖最后由 闲人庄生 于 2014-12-31 09:31 编辑

Zoom-Nikkor MF 35~105mm AIs opinions?
Jeff Locke , Jan 24, 2004; 01:31 a.m.

so i'm looking for a decent mf, old-school, nikkor zoom to leave on my camera (an fm2/n) for general use, and short trips and that sort of thing.

my primary reasons for looking at this lens is that it's a good range of focal lengths for me (i don't have a lot of use for anything even in the telephoto range unless i'm sightseeing), and it takes the same size filter as all my other lenses.

the larger ranged lenses do not take the same size, and tend to be larger and heavier. the macro ring construction is something that after thought and comparison, i prefer. so that's not a problem.

however, i have heard this lens has a terrible problem with light falloff, and flare.

does anyone own and use one of these? what's your experience? is the flare easily fixed with a shade and/or polarizer? how bad is the falloff? what about sharpness at the corners, or sharpness in general?

i'd be interested in seeing some shots taken with this lens.

Responses
I very strongly recomend that no one purchase this lens. I have had both the AIS version and the AF D version of the 35-105 Nikkor and have not been satisfied with either lens. Both lenses exhibit poor sharpness, flare, and very poor contrast. The sharpness is bad enough that any enlargement over 5 x 7 produce distinctly soft prints. At an 11 x 14 print this softness is very apparent at any viewing distance under 3 feet.

Many years ago, in a fit of pique, I decide that I would go all Nikkor with my lens system. I had gotten tired of the mix of lenses with the focusing direction being backwards on about 50% of my lenses. Because of this I traded in a very good Tokina 35-105 for the AIS version of the Nikkor lens and have always regretted that decision, the Tokina was a much better lens. When I went all AF for my lenses I had hopes that the much newer AF D lens had been improved. It wasn't, the AF D lens exhibits all of the faults of the earlier AIS version of the 35-105 zoom.

My hard disk took a dive and I lost the instructions on how to load pics onto these pages. If one of the moderators could send me those instructions, I can post an uncorrected, 800x600, sample and a clip from the scan of a negative that perfectly illustrates why I am not happy with either version of these lenses. The picture that I have in mind was shot using a tripod because I though it would be a great image, the lens spoiled that.

Albert Smith , Jan 24, 2004; 09:01 a.m.

I have one of these lenses, bought it new in 1985. At that time my most used lenses were a 35mm f/2.0 and a105mm f/2.5, so on paper, this tiny zoom seemed like a great tool. Over time, I used it a lot, but have since “retired” it based on a couple of important (for me) factors that made it less than satisfying in real world use.

First some positives things: This lens is made to the same high mechanical standards of Nikkors from that era, much better than the consumer zooms of today. Secondly, the physical size of this lens is pretty nice when you consider that it has the same 52mm filter ring as the primes it replaces. A feature missing from modern zooms is depth of field scales for zone and hyper-focusing, but the 35-105mm AIS lens has these at least for some apertures. I put these to use very often while using this lens. In the middle apertures, this lens was able to produce nice quality images.

On the down side: Obviously, the aperture is slower than the primes. I can honestly say that I lost shots while carrying the zoom that would have been easy with the primes that I usually carried
The focusing action was a little too gradual for my taste. When combined with the darker finder (aperture) and depth of field differential over the primes (aperture again), the focusing was pretty labor intensive for me. I seemed to need more back and forth action to establish focus, and even then it was subjective, especially at the wider end. And for me, the biggest problem was the so-called macro mode. In its normal range the lens simply stops focusing at 4 feet. From there, you need to engage a small button and then adjust yet another ring to focus below 4 feet. This adds another step into the process that slowed me down quite often. I am surprised how often I am at less than 4 feet with my 35mm lens, and this zoom made that less than a smooth transition.

The bottom line for me anyhow is that the lens did not deliver as I had imagined it would. For all of the promise of a small lens that covered my most used lenses, the primes won out based on ease of focus and low-light capability. If you shoot out of doors in good light with ISO 400 spped film and mostly at long distances, then this lens might be fine for you.

I will post two images taken from the same spot, one at 35mm (using the DOF scales for hyper-focus) and one at 105mm. You can see the low level of distortion and pretty good sharpness albeit at f/11.


35-105mm Nikkor zoom at 35mm
Albert Smith , Jan 24, 2004; 09:03 a.m.

And...


35-105mm Nikkor zoom at 105mm
Bill Hayes , Jan 24, 2004; 10:04 a.m.

It has a reputation of having the largest sample variation of any lens Nikon has ever produced. The best samples are excellent, the worst are mediocre.

I have one. I usually carry it when I'm travelling light and carrying only one other lens, usually a 50mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.4.

I have no complaints with the lens, but I use a "better" lens when I'm planning more important shots.

Dimitri Kalakanis , Jan 24, 2004; 10:44 a.m.

In addition, the variability is, also, within its zoom range. I had one; never knew what I will get. I did get some great pictures with it, but I now get many more with my 105mm f2.5 and 28mm f2.8 (both ais). I will say that it was a fine performer at its close (macro 1:4) range.

Norm Carr , Jan 24, 2004; 01:59 p.m.

For parties/events/snaps with a flash type of people photography you might like it. For its range it's small and portable. I did a couple of weddings with it, and it did fine (although I'm an amateur, so don't trust my opinion). I had one for a while and found I used it at the extreme lengths a lot of the time, and I don't do a lot of close up stuff, so changed to a 28mm and a 105mm and was much happier. Depends if you're a zoom kind of guy or not, really. If you're deeply into manual exposure calculation or hand-held metering, being variable aperture makes it a bit of a pain. The close up feature is nice for close-ups, but a major pain when you're at those not-all-that-close-up distances and have to fiddle with the button thingy. Mine seemed to be sufficiently sharp, but I didn't do anything especially critical with it, although I suspect at the close up range it was pretty good compared with a lot of 'macro' zooms out there. It will happily flare, just like any complex zoom design - hood advised. I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid it - it's definitely a 'need to try it for yourself' lens. Norm Carr , Jan 24, 2004; 02:02 p.m.

Rats. I could really learn to hate this forum's UI. Let's try that again...

Here's a couple of shots from it:



Matthew Currie , Jan 24, 2004; 05:14 p.m.

I have one and it seems to me that it makes nice sharp pictures, better than some other zooms I've seen. If there's a lot of sample variation in these, I guess I got a good one. It does have a couple of drawbacks. One is that the zoom (at least on mine) is very loose, making it difficult to ensure that it stays where you set it unless you hold on or put tape on it, and nearly impossible to focus without rechecking the frame. Another is that the macro setting, as someone else pointed out, requires pushing a button and rotating a separate ring, and the macro range itself is not at 105 mm, where I would prefer it. And it is pretty slow. Nonetheless this is often the "default" lens I leave on the camera because of its useful range and decent sharpness.


'shrooms
Jeff Locke , Jan 24, 2004; 05:54 p.m.

the macro-ring construction and bad close-distance range doesn't bother me too much for the purpose i need this for. for more planned shots, i'd just use one of my primes, which are brighter ad focus closer anyways.

i'm actually more or less looking at it to replace a god-awful vivitar model of the same basic set of features, that my mother picked up for $35 20 years ago. it has a terrible vignetting and light falloff problem, bad sharpness especially at the corners, flares like hell, and is really really heavy. the nikkor has another stop on it too, in the high end.

but i found on my last trip that it stayed on my camera a good percentage of the time. the range just suited me well.

judging from those pictures and presuming i actually get a GOOD one, it looks like i'd probably be satisfied with this lens for that kind of purpose.
Al Tan , Jan 24, 2004; 08:33 p.m.

Jeff,

I think you should spend your money on a nice prime, like the 50 f/1.8 or 35 f/2 Ais. I have the 35-105 and am looking to selling it as it really does not give satisfying results (sharpness and speed).

Albert,

Nice shots of City Hall.

Jeff Locke , Jan 24, 2004; 10:12 p.m.

i have a 50mm 1.8 ais, and a 28m 2.8 ai which i am trying to lose in favor of the 28mm 2.8 ais (bought the wrong one, oops). i'm also planning on getting a 35mm prime of some sort at some point, i just haven't decided on exactly which. i might be getting a 24mm 2.0 after that.

just looking for a wide ranged, reasonable quality lens for quick trips, or when i don't wanna carry around a bunch of lenses.

truth be told, i'd probably use the 28 or 35 primes alot more.

Roland Vink , Jan 26, 2004; 04:47 p.m.

This lens has a variable reputation, some samples are good optically, others are not so good. Build quality is very good, like other manual focus Nikkors. It is a one-touch zoom with the nice DOF marks on the barrel. It only focuses to 1.4m at all focal lengths, which is rather long, but it has a macro mode which operates at all focal lengths, the greatest magnification is obtained at the short end of the zoom.

There are some alternatives worth considering. The AIS 35-70/3.3-4.5 can deliver good results provided you stop down a little. The simpler optical design means it is much more resistant to flare and ghosting. It has separate rings for zooming and focusing so it lacks the DOF marks. It focuses to 0.35m at all focal lengths with no fiddly macro mode so is much easier to use for closeup shooting. It has a small zoom range which is less useful but it makes up for it by being more portable. Build quality is not quite up to the standard of other AIS lenses, the aperture and focus rings are plastic, although it is still a well made lens.

A problem with both these lenses is that the aperture changes when you zoom. Each time you zoom you will need to adjust the aperture ring to obtain the correct exposure. The FM2 is easier to use with constant aperture zooms. Constant aperture mid-range MF zooms with the 52mm filter are the AI 43-85/3.5, series-E 36-72/3.5 and AIS 28-50/3.5. These are all decent lenses, but not outstanding. They have rather limited zoom ranges and do not focus very close, although the 28-50 has a macro mode. You can compare the specifications of these, and other nikon lenses here:

If you can live with variable aperture zooms and don't mind using an AF lens, the 28-70/3.5-4.5 is also worth considering. Optics are decent, as good or better as the others mentioned here and has a useful zoom range. For an AF lens, the manual handling is very good, although it's not the same as an manual lens.




本帖最后由 闲人庄生 于 2014-12-31 00:01 编辑

I have the 35-105 AIS. I have read that these are rather variable in quality, so you'd do well to purchase one with the possibility of returning it if it doesn't satisfy. Mine is decently, if not outstandingly, sharp. Any zoom will have more ghosting and flare than a prime, but this one seems reasonable with a hood. However, it is a little quirky in some other regards. First, of course, it's a variable aperture, which means you will have to ride the exposure setting on a non-automatic camera when you zoom. The "macro" function involves a locking secondary focusing ring, and interacts with the focus and zoom in a way that can be confusing, often requiring all three to be fiddled with to get into focus. In addition, the zoom is not parfocal, which means that you must refocus as you zoom. Finally, mine, like many samples of this lens, has a loose zoom. Not so loose as to flop, but loose enough that you cannot point it down for a macro shot without holding it or taping it in place - and since it is not parfocal, any unanticipated droop loses focus along with framing.

As I said, the performance is not bad, but I find the ergonomics clumsy, and prefer other lenses when I can use them. It is, however, a nice walking-around lens, with a good range for general use if the light is good. Don't get this with the expectation of doing serious macro work, though.

哈哈，谦虚啊。

对了，d700配ais镜头，A档时候，转动对焦环，液晶显示的光圈读数是整档变化还是半档或1/3档变化？

F6只能整档变。

谢谢啦。经济条件不允许更好更贵的，同时我的使用方式对机器要求也低一些

太喜欢这张了。

这个D700在您手里太值了。

仁兄鼓励哈。   确实，很多人是喜欢营造有别于正常视觉的画面，我比较喜欢朴实的中焦段一些，展示乡村的环境风物为主，太夸张了就夺题了

继续试拍

我好像记得尼康推出两款这样的镜头，一是35-105，一款是35-135，我使用过35-135这款配FM2，推拉变焦，成像非常好，典型的尼康风格。我估计你手中的这款镜头也相当的不错。
由于当时的技术限制，变焦头镜头的设计，广角端一般不会超过35MM，同时变焦最好是成倍，2倍，3倍，你那款镜头恰好是广角端的3倍。
后来由于技术的发展，变焦头的广角端进一步拓宽，由35发展为28，又有28发展成24，变焦范围达到5倍，24-120。

能体会到您"孤若寡闻" ,我本是好意写的字已经不少了, 您"只看拍摄效果啦" 就不等您肯首啦! ...  好事做到底就再送些信息:

借张榜兄的观点：“Ai35-70/3.5和Ais35-70/3.5是尼康手动时代两只高级标准变焦头，其成像质量和工艺制作在当年Nikkor镜头中属最高标准。美国大众摄影杂志对Ais35-70/3.5评价是：‘在全开光圈下，影像有非常轻微之柔化现象，但从f5.6开始清晰度明显上升，边角在各焦距中有良好表现，耀斑有很好控制，整体表现在极高水准’。如果你用一只做工扎扎实实的老镜头，保养的好足够你玩上一辈子”。
尼康Ais35-70/3.5贴图交流区
https://forum.xitek.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1018736&highlight=Ai%2B35-70

激情不已------Df和尼康手动头
https://forum.xitek.com/thread-1366128-1-1-1.html

这是尼康FM2+MD12马达+Ais35-70/3.5

对尼康粉丝我要给大家作个"普及知识"推广了:
我有这款43-86镜头(属Auto口),与它同辈份是还有80-200/f4.5 大家可知道尼康※※上第－款变焦就是这个43-86 头 (76年出品) !  优点是色彩艳丽, 缺点是对焦很不准! 如果在86端对准后改变焦到43拍摄后绝对未"合焦";   我曾送到新华社维修,师博赏玩后表示"没有办法"!  这款双环变焦头没几年就框得厉害(用料确很实在).
80-200/f4.5与5年后出品的80-200/f4变化不大(甚至色彩还没旧款艳丽), 只不过光圈大了半档,口径增大为62mm, 但我更喜欢老款的.
尼康之后又出品了小钢炮大钢炮以及如今的大(小)竹炮,这方面尼康积垒了丰富经验.

AIS35-105 F3.5-4.5试拍户外