Need Advice re: Zoom Lens for Nikon F2AS

[narsuitus]

> General purpose photography, all hand-held: a portrait, a picture of an old house. rain tracks, old buildings, or an old car. My idea was to carry the 35mm camera around with me (as I used to many, many, many years ago) and shoot whatever catches my eye. The idea of a zoom was to be able to "get in closer" without having to physically move closer to whatever I want to photograph.
> I intend to develop the 35mm negs (in my darkroom) and print the ones I like to 8x10 or 11x14. Thus, image quality matters.

If I were in your situation, the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 would be my first choice and the Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 would be a distant second choice.

Nikon produced the 28-70 to replaced the 35-70. Both produce excellent image quality. However, since the 35-70 is older, it is available at a lower price.

The 28-70 was replaced by the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 but is not an option because it is a "G" lens with no aperture ring and the F2 needs an aperture ring for exposure control.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I want a Nikkor 25-50 f4 AI-S to make a pair with the 50-135 f3.5. I've found I prefer MF 90% of the time. It has a good reputation if you'd be interested in the wider end of things as well.

 

[destroya]

the only zoom i use for my manual focus nikons are th 35-70 2.8d lens and the 80-200 4.5 late model. both are as sharp as you can get for zooms with the 80-200 on top. the only downside is the 4.5 max app making it dark and sometimes difficult to focus

 

[Robert Ley]

Given your recent post with your shooting criteria, I would double down on the 35-105. It is fairly compact, no bigger than my 105 f:2.5, is a push pull design(which I think is easier to us) uses nikon standard 52mm filters and has a nifty macro capability.

Check out the lens here: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/35105mm.htm

The 80-200 would be a good second lens but IMO
Is a bit long for a solo lens in your kit.

The F2AS is a great camera, arguably the finest MF Nikon body. Last of the hand assembled Nikon's ,
Tougher than nails with a very good meter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[JackRosa]

50-135mm good?

I want a Nikkor 25-50 f4 AI-S to make a pair with the 50-135 f3.5. I've found I prefer MF 90% of the time. It has a good reputation if you'd be interested in the wider end of things as well.

How's the 50-135mm f/3.5 working for you? I've heard some good things about it. I read somewhere that this lens is preferable to the 75-150mm f/3.5 E series. Do you agree?

 

[JackRosa]

Thank you Robert

Given your recent post with your shooting criteria, I would double down on the 35-105. It is fairly compact, no bigger than my 105 f:2.5, is a push pull design(which I think is easier to us) uses nikon standard 52mm filters and has a nifty macro capability.

The 80-200 would be a good second lens but IMO
Is a bit long for a solo lens in your kit.

THANKS Robert. I will take a very close look at this lens you recommend.

 

[ic-racer]

Sure you want a zoom? I'd get as far from Large Format as possible with a compact, fast fixed focal length lens. For example the 35mm f2.0.

 

[bdial]

I have the Nikkor 35-105. They don't get much love from the pixel-peeping (or grain-peeping?) crowd, but I've always thought it as a great "walking around" lens when you want a compact kit. In one optic you get pretty much everything; wide, normal, classic portrait length plus macro and everything in between. And, it's compact compared to the longer zooms with more range, roughly the same size as a 105 prime.

It has it's demonstrated faults as does the cousin 28-85 if your favorite subject is resolution charts, but they are not particularly noticeable in real-world photos. At least, that has been my experience.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

How's the 50-135mm f/3.5 working for you? I've heard some good things about it. I read somewhere that this lens is preferable to the 75-150mm f/3.5 E series. Do you agree?

No experience with the 80-200 E so I cannot compare. But I love the 50-135. It's a typical Ai-S Nikkor. Meaty real metal with great glass. I got lucky with mine it's like new. I'm not well versed in technical descriptions but I love the images I get with it and it lives on the F5 whenever the I want to go light ( :crazy: ). After the CLA virtually eliminated the zoom creep (used to fall to the stops w/o resistance) it became easy to use. Smooth zoom with easy focus on every camera I have that it fits. I've played with the "macro" setting and it softens considerably but allows some decent shots in a pinch. It's a great carry around lens that covers a nice spread. That and the 24MM f2.8 Ai covers just about everything I would see in a day.

 

[JackRosa]

35-105mm

I have the Nikkor 35-105. They don't get much love from the pixel-peeping (or grain-peeping?) crowd, but I've always thought it as a great "walking around" lens when you want a compact kit. In one optic you get pretty much everything; wide, normal, classic portrait length plus macro and everything in between. And, it's compact compared to the longer zooms with more range, roughly the same size as a 105 prime.

It has it's demonstrated faults as does the cousin 28-85 if your favorite subject is resolution charts, but they are not particularly noticeable in real-world photos. At least, that has been my experience.

---
Thank you for sharing your experiences with the Nikkor 35-105mm. I have read a number of negative reviews and was wondering. I would think that if it were such a bad lens, Nikon would have discontinued it very quickly.

I am not going to be super picky with the zoom lens I get. Heck, if I am going to scrutinize the tiniest of details, I might as well bring out the 8x10, set it on tripod, and produce an 8x10 negative. I have impeccable glass for this format

 

[JackRosa]

50-135mm f/3.5

No experience with the 80-200 E so I cannot compare. But I love the 50-135. It's a typical Ai-S Nikkor. Meaty real metal with great glass. I got lucky with mine it's like new. I'm not well versed in technical descriptions but I love the images I get with it and it lives on the F5 whenever the I want to go light ( :crazy: ). After the CLA virtually eliminated the zoom creep (used to fall to the stops w/o resistance) it became easy to use. Smooth zoom with easy focus on every camera I have that it fits. I've played with the "macro" setting and it softens considerably but allows some decent shots in a pinch. It's a great carry around lens that covers a nice spread. That and the 24MM f2.8 Ai covers just about everything I would see in a day.

- - - -

Thanks for the insight. I had read some very good things (reviews) about this lens. It has moved to the top of the list.

 

[cuthbert]

Personally I chose the 35-200 because I had a good experience with the equivalent in Pentax mount, that is the A 35-210 f3.5-4.5.

IMO short ratio zooms aren't that useful, better to have two or three primes.

 

[John Koehrer]

---
Thank you for sharing your experiences with the Nikkor 35-105mm. I have read a number of negative reviews and was wondering. I would think that if it were such a bad lens, Nikon would have discontinued it very quickly.

Makers have dogs they produce for years. Likely something to do with bean counters not wanting to waste the R&D costs.

 

[macrorie]

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.

 

[bdial]

The original 43-86 Nikkor zoom was panned for years for it's optical performance. But (my understanding is that…) photojournalists loved it, as it gave them a lot of flexibility in framing when shooting from press boxes and the like where they couldn't move around much, and had no time for fiddling around changing lenses.

I suppose, since those photos were hardly ever viewed as original prints, the optical faults were of little consequence.

 

[flavio81]

My recommendations would be:

Best (approaching prime lens quality):
35-70 f3.5 (constant)
28-50 f3.5
75-150 series E zoom

You can see a pattern here and this pattern is even valid for today; all things equal, the better zoom will have:

- short zoom ratio ( ideally 2X zoom ratio, 3X at most)
- slow speed
- constant speed (constant speed zoom lenses internally are stopped-down a little bit when at the long end)

Other than that, most other lenses of the era (AI) will not be so good. This means that carrying 2 prime lenses would be better -- faster speed, better image quality. What's the use of having a zoom that only performs great when used at f8 or f11? In that case a slow prime is a better choice.

Some exceptions will be present, of course. For example i had a 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor AF zoom that had good optical quality. Not great but very good for general use. However, it was huge and heavy.

The original 43-86 Nikkor zoom was panned for years for it's optical performance. But (my understanding is that…) photojournalists loved it, as it gave them a lot of flexibility in framing when shooting from press boxes and the like where they couldn't move around much, and had no time for fiddling around changing lenses.

The original 43-86 is really poor in definition, samples are abundant in the web. The "new" (redesigned, late 70s) 43-86 has enormous amounts of distortion.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

The 50-135 f3.5 performs well at 3.5. Like most lenses it is best around F8. Bjorn Rorslett gives it a good review as do others.

I believe the CA the pixel peepin' DSLR guys see so much of with older glass is a result of the single RGB plane of a sensor vs. the layers of color film. I bet lens design has had to adapt to the difference. No different than the IR focusing issue. Hypothesis on my part so if someone with more optical knowledge could chime in. I gotta shoot a roll of color with this thing.

 

[JackRosa]

75-150mm series E really??

My recommendations would be:

Best (approaching prime lens quality):
35-70 f3.5 (constant)
28-50 f3.5
75-150 series E zoom

You can see a pattern here and this pattern is even valid for today; all things equal, the better zoom will have:

The original 43-86 is really poor in definition, samples are abundant in the web. The "new" (redesigned, late 70s) 43-86 has enormous amounts of distortion.

===
Surprised you place the 75-105 series E above the 50-135.. f/3.5 (???) Care to elaborate?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Look at his signature. He doesn't own one.

 

[flavio81]

===
Surprised you place the 75-105 series E above the 50-135.. f/3.5 (???) Care to elaborate?

I did not mention the 50-135 on my listing, so I didn't really place the 75-105 "above". I'm sorry for not having experience with that lens.

To complement my previous post: All in all, when one uses a photographic lens, there are many things that a discerning user should expect from a lens:

a. Good (fair) sharpness even when wide open
b. Smooth out-of-focus areas
c. Ability to obtain narrow DOF effects if desired
d. Resilience to flare and high contrast
e. Freedom from chromatic aberrations, for example on bright edges
f. Low geometric distortion
g. Good weight balance/distribution and easiness of focusing.
h. Enough speed (aperture) to cover a wide variety of situations
i. Easy to use DOF scale
f. Accurate focus scale (for scale focusing with wideangle lenses).
g. No troublesome focus shift when stopping down
h. No troublesome curvature-of-field problems

And to be honest, usually only prime lenses are able to satisfy all the above requisites. When opting for a zoom lens, one or more of the above will suffer.

 

[flavio81]

Look at his signature. He doesn't own one.

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.

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.

 

[cuthbert]

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.

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

You don't have THIS:

So your opinion is irrelevant!

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Was only a joke. Touchy touchy...........buying your cameras from a copier company must do that to ya.

 

[leicarfcam]

The "new" (redesigned, late 70s) 43-86 has enormous amounts of distortion.

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..

 

[Russ - SVP]

===
Surprised you place the 75-105 series E above the 50-135.. f/3.5 (???) Care to elaborate?

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.