Nikkor 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5D lens

[leicarfcam]

I have been hearing that this lens is a dog. I recently picked up a N80 with it and have been testing it over the last few days. This lens has produced very sharp images with no noticeable distortion even when enlarged to 16x20. After careful examination of the images I cannot see anything to make me think this lens is a dog.

Either I got lucky or the rumors simply are not true..

Overall I am very happy with this lens and will keep it..

 

[blockend]

One man's dog is another man's pearl. I've yet to find a lens I can't work with.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Well Colyn, I would like to know where did you "hear" about that Nikkor being a "dog".

I have that same lens.
The only "dog" about it is the somewhat loose zoom action. But, that is fairly common with Nikon push/pull zooms.
Optically it is a very good lens.
It is also the first AF Nikkor zoom with internal focusing.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Make sure the lens does hear that it's a dog and it will continue to perform just fine.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Had some experience with one for a project. I liked it and it produced some nice shots.

 

[flavio81]

I have been hearing that this lens is a dog. I recently picked up a N80 with it and have been testing it over the last few days. This lens has produced very sharp images with no noticeable distortion even when enlarged to 16x20. After careful examination of the images I cannot see anything to make me think this lens is a dog.

Either I got lucky or the rumors simply are not true..

Overall I am very happy with this lens and will keep it..

I think there are two versions of that lens; one without internal focusing and a later one with internal focusing. Both must have different performance.

One man's "dog" is another man's "great" lens. This happens, for example, with my Nikkor-S 58/1.4. My jewel.

 

[leicarfcam]

Well Colyn, I would like to know where did you "hear" about that Nikkor being a "dog".

Various photo forums.. Several have said that any 35-??mm zooms are dogs or at best poor...

I have that same lens.
The only "dog" about it is the somewhat loose zoom action. But, that is fairly common with Nikon push/pull zooms.
Optically it is a very good lens.
It is also the first AF Nikkor zoom with internal focusing.

I'm happy with it. This one does not have any looseness and feels new..

 

[flavio81]

Various photo forums.. Several have said that any 35-??mm zooms are dogs or at best poor...

A very misleading opinion, since 35-70 or 35-105 zooms, due to the short zoom range, can be optimized more effectively than a 28-xx or 24-xx zoom.

Some of the best "classic" zooms are of 35-xx design: Canon FD 35-70/2.8-3.5, also Canon FD 35-105/3.5, also Nikon 35-70/3.5.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It has been an enduring Internet-wisdom rumor that the Nikkor 35-105 manual focus lenses suffered from a high product sample variation. Meaning that there were fewer QA rejects at the factory, and thus a buyer's chances of being unwittingly handed a "dog" were greater.

I have no idea if these rumors were true or not. Or if the problem included the 'D' lenses. But years ago I purchased a brand new 35-105 AIS version from B&H and it turned out to be one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses in my collection. The thing is just blisteringly sharp. Sometimes too much so. And it's a great walking around lens for when one wishes to travel light. I also have had no problems at all with a loose zoom collar.

Maybe the warehouse picker just happened to unknowingly grab a nice one for me?

Ken

 

[Mick Fagan]

I purchased the 35-105 Ai-S Zoom Nikkor 3.5-4.5 brand new, not exactly sure when, but I had it on a long trip early in 1983.

I have never really liked it. For general use when travelling, it is nearly perfect, but its softness always annoyed me.

I still have it.

Mick.

 

[leicarfcam]

I purchased the 35-105 Ai-S Zoom Nikkor 3.5-4.5 brand new, not exactly sure when, but I had it on a long trip early in 1983.

I have never really liked it. For general use when travelling, it is nearly perfect, but its softness always annoyed me.

I still have it.

Mick.

I haven't noticed any softness at any of the focal ranges or distance. This lens has consistently produced razor sharp images in all of the tests I have done with it..

This lens may just become my new carry around lens..

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

The AIS version isn't the same as the AF-D IF one.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The AIS version isn't the same as the AF-D IF one.

Yes, but my point wasn't necessarily about versions, it was about sample variability across the board. I wondered if the rumored higher variability extended beyond those earlier AIS lens types.

Ken

 

[benveniste]

Either I got lucky or the rumors simply are not true..

Overall I am very happy with this lens and will keep it..

The "D" version used a simpler optical formula (13/10) than the manual focus and non-D versions (16/12), and that's why I think it got a bad "rep." It focused more closely than the old lens, but the old lens had did have an odd but useful "macro" feature. The "D" version also has a very short focus throw. I never heard much about sample variation on the "D" version but I'm not sure I would have. The "D" was never a terribly popular lens; 28-85mm's were handily outselling 35-105mm's by the time it came along.

I still have my 35-105mm AI-s I purchased in 1984. There were rumors of a "bad batch" even then, but I felt (and feel) mine was fine. Since I didn't switch to autofocus gear until 2002, I never had a reason to try the "D" version.

 

[leicarfcam]

Yes, but my point wasn't necessarily about versions, it was about sample variability across the board. I wondered if the rumored higher variability extended beyond those earlier AIS lens types.

Ken

I've done a lot of reading on the 28-?mm and 35-?mm Nikkor zoom lens and it seems that the variations seemed to be mainly with the manual focus versions more so than the AF lens. Those variations seemed to be less so once the AFD lens came out and the AFD 35mm-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (which is what I have) is in fact considered one of the best especially since it is a IF lens..

 

[flavio81]

The "D" version used a simpler optical formula (13/10) than the manual focus and non-D versions (16/12)

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes more modern techniques can result in better results with less lens elements. Or for example one aspheric lens element can replace several conventional elements.

One of my zooms, the Nikkor AF 35-80 4-5.6D, has only six (6) lens elements yet the performance is just fine.

Another example, the PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 lens was changed from 8 elements to a later 7 element version which is reputed to be better in performance.

Yet another example, the Canon 28/2.8 lens went from about 7 elements (Canon FD version) to 5 elements (Canon EF), by using one aspherical surface.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have been hearing that this lens is a dog. I recently picked up a N80 with it and have been testing it over the last few days. This lens has produced very sharp images with no noticeable distortion even when enlarged to 16x20. After careful examination of the images I cannot see anything to make me think this lens is a dog.

Either I got lucky or the rumors simply are not true..

Overall I am very happy with this lens and will keep it..

You got lucky and I'm happy for you;In my mind all zooms are dogs;at least the ones I tried; I no longer use them,use prime lenses and zoom with my feet.

 

[leicarfcam]

You got lucky and I'm happy for you;In my mind all zooms are dogs;at least the ones I tried; I no longer use them,use prime lenses and zoom with my feet.

I'm not a big zoom fan myself but most modern day zooms can be very good lens so I won't knock them.

All focal ranges of this lens have produced excellent quality images and the small amount of distortion I have seen in the wide range is easily corrected in Gimp and/or DigiKam..

 

[Theo Sulphate]

One man's dog is another man's pearl. I've yet to find a lens I can't work with.

Completely agree.

You got lucky and I'm happy for you;In my mind all zooms are dogs;at least the ones I tried; I no longer use them,use prime lenses and zoom with my feet.

I tend to have this same sentiment about preferring primes, but there are times when that's not practical for me - such as with motorsports.

I bought the Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 AF-D for a good price at a swap meet, without researching it, only to find later almost everyone calling it a very bad lens. Since I shoot motorsports with my D700, I tried that lens and got very nice sharp photos - even while panning. Maybe I just got lucky with this particular lens or maybe there are a lot of pixel peepers writing reviews.

 

[leicarfcam]

I bought the Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 AF-D for a good price at a swap meet, without researching it, only to find later almost everyone calling it a very bad lens. Since I shoot motorsports with my D700, I tried that lens and got very nice sharp photos - even while panning. Maybe I just got lucky with this particular lens or maybe there are a lot of pixel peepers writing reviews.

If you look at the so-called lens evaluation sites they all seem to have one thing in common.. They use first generation DSLR's to test film camera lens.

I've run a number of lens evaluations recently with my D800 DSLR and have come up with completely different results.. I also have the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D lens and the very minor distortion at 24mm is easily correctable with PhotoShop as well as my favorite Gimp and DigiKam.. Even the lowly 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 is a fine lens...

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Since I shoot motorsports with my D700

I've run a number of lens evaluations recently with my D800 DSLR

Oh dear!
And this thread was going so well. Ufff, some have to mention how much Digitographers they really are.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Oh dear!
And this thread was going so well. Ufff, some have to mention how much Digitographers they really are.

The only reason I mentioned it is because that's the camera I use that lens on.

I have and use nearly 50 film cameras:

Nikon: F, F2, F2, F2, F2S, F2S, F3/T, F3/T, F4S, F4S, FM, FM3a
Canon: EF, AE-1P, RebelG, RebelG, RebelG, Elan 7NE, QL17GIII, Canonet 28
Leica: M3, M3, M6, M6, SL, SL
Exakta: VX, VX, VX, VXIIa, 500
Hasselblad: 500C/M, 501C, SWC, 553ELX
Mamiya: RB67 Pro S, RB67 ProS
Fuji: GW690III
Polaroid: SX-70, SLR 690, Image 1200
Minolta: SRT-101, SRT-101, Maxxum 7
Minox: III, IIIs, IIIs, B
Graflex: Pacemaker 4x5
Olympus: XA, XA2
Other: Pentax SP500, Ricoh GR1, Voigtländer Bessamatic, Rolleiflex 3.5F, Retina IIa

This year I've shot film in at least 10 of my cameras. Hopefully that's good enough to keep me from getting kicked out of APUG.

P.S. the D700 is really nice

 

[MartinCrabtree]

You have offended the gods.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Lol No.

Theo
I posted it because I've noticed you mentioning your new D-thingie quite often in the last month or so.
It was just a reminder that I come here to read and help those who appreciate all film things.
It is good you have that many and expensive film cameras.
I just hope that this being the 11th month you have used more than 10 rolls.
I use 10 rolls, a brick, about every 2-3 weeks.
That's why I use a lot bulk films (Foma/Kentmere) and cheap £1 colour films.

 

[benveniste]

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes more modern techniques can result in better results with less lens elements. Or for example one aspheric lens element can replace several conventional elements.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that Nikon used any "modern techniques" in the 35-105mm change. Neither lens contains any ED glass, aspherical elements, diffractive optics, fluorite elements, or any of the other tools available to a modern lens designer. As I noted, I have no first hand knowledge of the "D" lens, but Nikon users of the time had good reason to be leery of simplified designs. The 28mm f/2.8 AF was decidedly inferior to the 28mm f/2.8 AI-s, for example, and even after a redesign the 28mm f/2.8D only closed the gap somewhat. So whatever the perform reality, the perception was that Nikon was just trying to reduce costs.