Nikkor 135/2.0 AF-D DC: Misaligned aperture

My new second-hand 135 DC still shows some of the aperture blades at maximum aperture which should not be the case:



I suspect that the aperture is misadjusted and I have already corrected this on another lens.

But I will be careful not to try to do anything myself here, this complex lens is not for DIY, at least not for me.

I have already asked Nikon and I think they will be able to adjust it.

Update to follow.

Andreas Thaler said:

I have already asked Nikon and I think they will be able to adjust it.

Update to follow.

Click to expand...

Very interested in the update, Andreas.

I have the "sibling" of your lens type: The AF-D Nikkor 2/105 DC. It was introduced in 1993, three years later than the AF-D 2/135 DC.
The 2/105 DC is optically even better than excellent 135 DC.
The 105 DC is an absolutelly outstanding lens, and really one of the best Nikkors ever made. I love it, will never give it away.
It is one of the rare "hidden treasures" most Nikon photographers don't know about.

Best regards,
Henning

Andreas Thaler said:

My new second-hand 135 DC still shows some of the aperture blades at maximum aperture which should not be the case:

View attachment 381647

I suspect that the aperture is misadjusted and I have already corrected this on another lens.

But I will be careful not to try to do anything myself here, this complex lens is not for DIY, at least not for me.

I have already asked Nikon and I think they will be able to adjust it.

Update to follow.

Click to expand...

I asked a repairman friend of mine about this, who is a professional with Nikkors and has a lot of experience.

He said that the aperture misalignment is below Nikon's tolerance limit, which is 1/3 of an aperture. If that bothers me, it can be easily adjusted. It has no practical effect on the image results.

Henning Serger said:

The 2/105 DC is optically even better than excellent 135 DC.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you're happy with the little brother of the 135 DC.

Good thing I no longer have a budget and my passion for collecting has waned

How do you compare two lenses with different focal lengths and come to the conclusion that the optics of one are better than the other?

It was "widely known" that the 105 was technically a bit better than 135, sharper across the entire frame and 135 with a bit more "character".

I only had 135 DC and if that lens falls short of your expectations/demands then I don't know what kind of photography would require that extra bit from 105 (partrait photography certainly isn't it). I'd pick between 105 or 135 based on focal length. Oh, there might've been more reports of AF issues with 135 but that may have been down to 135 being the first DC lens and users not using it properly. Of course, Nikon might fix something in 105 which was released later, but I would expect that they would fix 135 at the same time if there was someting to be fixed...

brbo said:

It was "widely known" that the 105 was technically a bit better than 135, sharper across the entire frame and 135 with a bit more "character".

I only had 135 DC and if that lens falls short of your expectations/demands then I don't know what kind of photography would require that extra bit from 105 (partrait photography certainly isn't it). I'd pick between 105 or 135 based on focal length. Oh, there might've been more reports of AF issues with 135 but that may have been down to 135 being the first DC lens and users not using it properly. Of course, Nikon might fix something in 105 which was released later, but I would expect that they would fix 135 at the same time if there was someting to be fixed...

Click to expand...

I don't believe in such comparisons, because you should measure a lens by what it was designed for.

A correspondingly pointless counterargument would be to say that the 135 is „better“ for portraits than the shorter 105 because it resolves the background „better“ due to its longer focal length, even if that is supposed to be „sharper“ - under what conditions?

No lens is 100 % corrected, there are no test conditions in practice.

Added to that is the manufacturer-related quality variance, what should we compare with what?

What magnification scale are we talking about at what viewing distance?

Incident or transmitted light?

Film or sensor?

Has post-processing been taken into account, etc.

Forums are full of such discussions.

But this is about the obviously misaligned aperture of my 135 DC, not its imaging qualities

Andreas Thaler said:

My new second-hand 135 DC still shows some of the aperture blades at maximum aperture which should not be the case:

View attachment 381647

I suspect that the aperture is misadjusted and I have already corrected this on another lens.

But I will be careful not to try to do anything myself here, this complex lens is not for DIY, at least not for me.

I have already asked Nikon and I think they will be able to adjust it.

Update to follow.

Click to expand...

Nikon Support says that everything is within the norm and nothing needs to be adjusted.

I'm glad that nothing needs to be repaired for once