Need Advice re: Zoom Lens for Nikon F2AS

[JackRosa]

Happy with the 135mm?

LOL!! I do own Nikon lenses. And have sold others. Currently:

Nikkor AI 20/4.0
Nikkor PC-Nikkor 35/3.5
Nikkor PC-Nikkor 35/2.8
Nikkor AI 50/1.8
Nikkor-S 58/1.4
Nikkor AI 135/3.5
Nikkor AI 200/4.0
Sigma Super-Wide II 24/2.8

Some of the above lenses are so good that should be labeled "Canon", in particular the 35s, 20, and 200.
The 58/1.4 is sweet as Nutella.


Now, the OP owns a Nikon F2AS, just like me. That's a heavy camera so any heavy lens might upset camera balance, or may even improve it, so take this into account. I'd say that if he really wants to have a zoom, get the 28-50/3.5 because of being small, light, and really high performance. And compliment it with a 85, 100-105, or 135 for the long end. That would be a good kit for many photographic situations, in particular if he/she chooses a fast short tele.

- - - - -

Flavio: good things to say about the prime 135mm? Sharp at all apertures? Exvellent overall? Less than excellent?

 

[JackRosa]

Canon vs. Nikon (lenses)

LOL!! I do own Nikon lenses. And have sold others. Currently:



Some of the above lenses are so good that should be labeled "Canon", in particular the 35s, 20, and 200.
The 58/1.4 is sweet as Nutella.

Currently no Nikon zoom lenses in my arsenal, only Canons.

Now, the OP owns a Nikon F2AS, just like me. That's a heavy camera so any heavy lens might upset camera balance, or may even improve it, so take this into account. I'd say that if he really wants to have a zoom, get the 28-50/3.5 because of being small, light, and really high performance. And compliment it with a 85, 100-105, or 135 for the long end. That would be a good kit for many photographic situations, in particular if he/she chooses a fast short tele.

-----

Do you favor Canon lenses vs. Nikon? Any opinion re: Nikons vs. Canon FD's? I was under the impression that Nikons were superb (????):confused:

 

[flavio81]

I've not found this to be true. I have 2 late 70's 43-86mm zooms and while they do have some distortion it's minimal.. All zooms display a bit of distortion..

Regarding the 43-86: Zoom it to 86mm and then frame a flat screen TV (like the typical big LCD television at your home.) See what happens to the edges!

Regarding "all zooms display a bit of distortion". Yes, but there is a BIG difference between many of them with regards to how well controlled is this distortion.

- - - - - Flavio: good things to say about the prime 135mm? Sharp at all apertures? Exvellent overall? Less than excellent?

Excellent lens, the only reason it isn't legendary as the 105/2.5 Nikkor, is because it's has the "vulgar" 135mm focal length, and it's not fast (f3.5). Sharp at all apertures, nice OOF areas, compact.

Frankly, any respectable brand can make an excellent 135/3.5 lens if they want, and Nikon is no exception. This because it's an easy lens to make (reasonable lens speed for the focal length). Just 4 elements inside, and they go a long way.

The 135 focal length is great if you don't have a 85, 105, or 200mm. Because it is like a general-purpose tele (for me, at least.) But since I now have the Nikkor 200/4 (excellent lens as well), i'm thinking of selling the 135 and getting a 105.

However, I had the Canon New FD 135/2.8 and it was equally compact, equally good, a bit ligther, and 1/2 stop faster; so I miss selling it...

Do you favor Canon lenses vs. Nikon? Any opinion re: Nikons vs. Canon FD's? I was under the impression that Nikons were superb (????):confused:

Both brands have made great lenses, they were evenly matched overall. My recommendation is to have both systems, so you can pick the best lenses of each brand and use them. To put just two examples at random: The 105/2.5 Nikkor, and the 35/2.0 Canon FD.

 

[Lamar]

I have the 35-200mm AIS. Great lens and if I need a one-lens-do-it-all for daylight this is the one I grab, it has limited macro capability too. As for sharp....... I've never had a complaint. Here are 92 images and counting you can check out to see for yourself. https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/sets/72157643101401995

I also have a 50-135 but I find the focal length too limiting on the wide end. If I need that focal length I usually just put the 80-200 f/2.8 on. With the 35-200 I can grab it and my 24mm and do just about anything I need with respect to the lens speed. If you think you might need a low light shot stick a fast 50 or 35 in your bag, just in case.

....... It would seem to me that most flexibility would be had with the 35-200mm but I do not want to significantly sacrifice image quality..........

 

[rrusso]

The Nikon E 75-150 was designed by Nikon and made for them by Kiron (Kino Precision Industries) it and the Kiron 70-150, deliver superb results. They are not the same design. The Kiron version is smaller and more compact. But, both the Kiron and the Nikon will deliver very high caliber and professional results.

Don't own nor have I used the 50-135, but the 75-150 is great. They're so inexpensive, it would be a shame not to pick one up and see for yourself. I think I paid around $50 for mine, near mint condition.

Definitely not Nikkor build quality, and it does feel cheap in use, but the image quality is very nice.

 

[leicarfcam]

Regarding the 43-86: Zoom it to 86mm and then frame a flat screen TV (like the typical big LCD television at your home.) See what happens to the edges!

Regarding "all zooms display a bit of distortion". Yes, but there is a BIG difference between many of them with regards to how well controlled is this distortion.

I've done this before and gotten distortion with all lens fixed and zoom so this is not a good test. Even flat screen TV's have a bit of curvature. A better "real world" test is to make a chart with vertical and horizontal lines and shoot it..

 

[cuthbert]

I have the 35-200mm AIS. Great lens and if I need a one-lens-do-it-all for daylight this is the one I grab, it has limited macro capability too. As for sharp....... I've never had a complaint. Here are 92 images and counting you can check out to see for yourself. https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamarlamb/sets/72157643101401995

I just received mine because I had a good experience with another superzoom, the Pentax A 35-210 that was to compete against this Nikkor.

I haven't tested it yet but it looks very well made, good lens quality, slightly smaller than the Pentax but the focusing "stroke" is very short (90 degrees) so I'm a little concerned I might be missing some focusing.

Also, I don't understand why they decided to implement the macro function at 35mm instead of 200 mm....I'm eager to shoot something.

 

[JackRosa]

Thanks for the info

I have used the 50-135mm 3.5 with a Nikon F2A for many years, and it is an excellent lens. I first learned about its usefulness from books by the nature photographer John Shaw. A frequently used kit for me is the F2A, a 28mm 2.8 AIS, the 50-135mm 3.5, and a 200 4.0 AI, and all of that plus some filters and a cable release is carried around easily in a small shoulder bag. Another useful complement to the 50-135mm is the 35mm 2.0 lens.

- - - - - - - -
Thank you for sharing this information. Another + for the 50-135mm f/3.5 . . . . I am pretty convinced I need to have such lens.

 

[JackRosa]

Thank You For All This Information

Regarding "all zooms display a bit of distortion". Yes, but there is a BIG difference between many of them with regards to how well controlled is this distortion.

(re: 135mm lens): Excellent lens, the only reason it isn't legendary as the 105/2.5 Nikkor, is because it's has the "vulgar" 135mm focal length, and it's not fast (f3.5). Sharp at all apertures, nice OOF areas, compact.


The 135 focal length is great if you don't have a 85, 105, or 200mm. Because it is like a general-purpose tele (for me, at least.) But since I now have the Nikkor 200/4 (excellent lens as well), i'm thinking of selling the 135 and getting a 105



(re: Canon/Nikon): Both brands have made great lenses, they were evenly matched overall. My recommendation is to have both systems, so you can pick the best lenses of each brand and use them. To put just two examples at random: The 105/2.5 Nikkor, and the 35/2.0 Canon FD.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

Thank you for all this information & insight - it is very valuable!

 

[JackRosa]

75-150mm series E really??

Don't own nor have I used the 50-135, but the 75-150 is great. They're so inexpensive, it would be a shame not to pick one up and see for yourself. I think I paid around $50 for mine, near mint condition.

Definitely not Nikkor build quality, and it does feel cheap in use, but the image quality is very nice.

= = = =

Thank you for sharing this insight. I have looked around for this lens (75-150 series E) and have noticed that it is priced very attractively. Good to know from someone who has used this lens that it is a good lens. You can't beat the prices!

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Most of the Series E lenses are far better than you'd think. Image quality is great-build quality not so durable as a Nikkor. I have a 50mm f1.8 E and it's loose and tired however still produces sharp images. Probably the best value lens I have at $6 USD.

 

[JackRosa]

Holy Smokes! $6

Most of the Series E lenses are far better than you'd think. Image quality is great-build quality not so durable as a Nikkor. I have a 50mm f1.8 E and it's loose and tired however still produces sharp images. Probably the best value lens I have at $6 USD.

Holy smokes! $6 ?? what a steal!

Thanks for the insight re: E series lenses. I usually take good care of my photo gear and probably would do OK with a lens that is not necessarily built out of steel plate.

 

[trythis]

I prefer cheap as chips gear just so I dont get the film sweats about ruining it. OT but I got a N80 for $6 once!


Typos made on a tiny phone...

 

[flavio81]

= = = =

Thank you for sharing this insight. I have looked around for this lens (75-150 series E) and have noticed that it is priced very attractively. Good to know from someone who has used this lens that it is a good lens. You can't beat the prices!

BTW, the 75-150 was designed by Nikon. And designed by one of the better lens designers at Nikon.
Probably all Series E lenses were Nikon-designed as well. A good lens line!

 

[JackRosa]

serie E ~ design

BTW, the 75-150 was designed by Nikon. And designed by one of the better lens designers at Nikon.
Probably all Series E lenses were Nikon-designed as well. A good lens line!

Good to know! Good design usually breeds good products!

 

[Russ - SVP]

BTW, the 75-150 was designed by Nikon. And designed by one of the better lens designers at Nikon.
Probably all Series E lenses were Nikon-designed as well. A good lens line!

Yes, designed by Nikon, and made by Kiron, per their specs. The smaller Kiron 70-150 is every bit as sharp, but better built.