Nikon 35-105 AI manual zoom

[David Lingham]

I recently bought a very clean example of this lens from ebay for only £25 ($39). I’ve found as the years have advanced carrying a bag of fixed lenses around is becoming difficult, and the intention was to use it with a “walk around” camera for more informal pictures. In 40yrs of photography this is my first ever zoom lens purchase, but I’ve found the lens just does not perform well. I have run a couple of test rolls of FP4 in DDX with my F2 on a tripod, one using the zoom and the other my 35, 50 & 105 AI lenses. I used the same three apertures (5.6,8,16) with all lenses. When I viewed the films with a loupe alongside each other on a light box, there is an appreciable difference, in both sharpness and contrast. Perhaps I expected more, but I wondered, has anyone else had this experience? Do these lenses vary, if they do have I bought a duff one?

 

[bdial]

I have one that I bought new, and as you suggest, I used it as my "walk around" lens. I've never noticed a huge difference between it and my comparable primes, but I don't know that I've made a really close examination.

That said, it doesn't have a stellar reputation. I don't know how much they might vary, but any of them are fairly old at this point, and all are probably vulnerable to drops and other hazards. Maybe you got an abused one.

 

[Alex Muir]

I bought the 35-70 f3.3-4.5 AiS for the same purpose. I have to say I've been quite impressed with it, although I've never made a technical comparison with prime lenses. It is also cheap and easily available. It is a very light and compact lens. The two-touch design with separate zoom and focus rings took me a while to get used to, but that was because my previous zooms were all one-touch. In general terms, I don't think you will get the same quality from any zoom, compared to a good prime lens. It depends on whether or not you can live with the difference. You could try to get some reviews and test reports of suitable Nikon MF zooms to see which was considered the best performer. There were several made before AF took over. There is also an AF 35-70 f2.8 which gets a good reputation, but it is much more expensive, and not a lightweight. Another option is to travel with just one focal length, but I know that I would find that quite restrictive.
Alex

 

[removed-user-1]

Over the years, I've had four different examples of the Nikkor 35-105; two AIs examples, one early AF, and finally the last D-series AF model. Each time I ended up getting rid of the lens. It's not that they are bad, and I can't put my finger on anything specific, but I did not like enlargements beyond about 5x7" with any of them. It is a better lens than the one AIs Nikkor 35-135 I owned, which was *not* good, very soft.

 

[David Lingham]

Thank you all for your replies. I think I expected to much from this lens. Interesting that rthomas owned and sold four of them suggesting mine is much like all the rest. And as he said you can’t put your finger on it but enlargements just don’t look right. As I only paid £25 ($39) for it, I'll keep it and find a use for it.

 

[jimjm]

According to David Ruether's site, this lens has some of the most sample-variable quality of any Nikon lenses he's tested. It may be you've just got a bad one.

I used mine frequently for years and never found it lacking in any respect. I rarely use it now as I'm shooting more with primes and faster lenses.

Here's one sample at around 105mm.

 

[fotch]

Fixed lens with be sharper than a zoom lens in my experience and in test that I have read about that others preformed. In most casual shooting, probably would not be an issue.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I think you got a bad example or one that was mildly abused enough over the years to perhaps throw some elements slightly off.

 

[David Lingham]

Thanks all. Interesting comment from Jimjm about varying production quality, because my lens has no sign of being mistreated. I’ll stick with my primes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I bought the 35-70 f3.3-4.5 AiS for the same purpose. I have to say I've been quite impressed with it, although I've never made a technical comparison with prime lenses. It is also cheap and easily available. It is a very light and compact lens. The two-touch design with separate zoom and focus rings took me a while to get used to, but that was because my previous zooms were all one-touch. In general terms, I don't think you will get the same quality from any zoom, compared to a good prime lens. It depends on whether or not you can live with the difference. You could try to get some reviews and test reports of suitable Nikon MF zooms to see which was considered the best performer. There were several made before AF took over. There is also an AF 35-70 f2.8 which gets a good reputation, but it is much more expensive, and not a lightweight. Another option is to travel with just one focal length, but I know that I would find that quite restrictive.
Alex

what you call restrictive.I call forcing you to be creative and zoom with your feet.For reasons of maimizing optical quality,I carry two primes with focal lengths depending on anticipated subject matter.35/50 or 50/85 are typical combinations.For me this is a nice compromise between quality and eight.I was never impressed by any zoom.

 

[j-dogg]

I'd like to put my name in the hat for the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f2.8-3.5, the one made by Kiron. Absolutely stellar zoom lens I had one on my AE-1

 

[gone]

I had one of those plastic AF 35 70 Nikon lenses on an N6006 once. Very light, fun to shoot, and the IQ was better than expected. Sure, the 2.8 version is sharper, but it's also a lot heavier and more expensive. There are largish prints from that 35 70 here and they look OK to me. I'm more about the image these days rather than being a sharpness freak, and why zoom w/ your feet if you don't have to? Besides, sometimes your back is up against the wall, literally, and a zoom is the only fast option.

If I was doing much photography these days I would go back to that N6006 and cheap AF 35 70. Looking back over old photos, it was obvious that the AF feature of the camera and that little zoom lens freed me from all the things that slowed me down later, and I was able to get shots on the spur of the moment that were impossible to get w/ "better" MF gear.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I'd like to put my name in the hat for the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f2.8-3.5, the one made by Kiron. Absolutely stellar zoom lens I had one on my AE-1

All of the Vivitar Series 1, 28-90 lenses were made by Komine. And yes, it's a very good lens. I'm still using the one that I purchased new in 1984.

 

[Alex Muir]

I had one of those plastic AF 35 70 Nikon lenses on an N6006 once. Very light, fun to shoot, and the IQ was better than expected. Sure, the 2.8 version is sharper, but it's also a lot heavier and more expensive. There are largish prints from that 35 70 here and they look OK to me. I'm more about the image these days rather than being a sharpness freak, and why zoom w/ your feet if you don't have to? Besides, sometimes your back is up against the wall, literally, and a zoom is the only fast option.

If I was doing much photography these days I would go back to that N6006 and cheap AF 35 70. Looking back over old photos, it was obvious that the AF feature of the camera and that little zoom lens freed me from all the things that slowed me down later, and I was able to get shots on the spur of the moment that were impossible to get w/ "better" MF gear.

I'm on a short holiday at the moment in Munich with 7 friends. I took a Nikon N75 and the 50 f1.8 AF-D. I really wish I had the 35-70, or a 28-105. Getting group shots in crowded areas has been near impossible.
Alex.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I recently bought a very clean example of this lens from ebay for only £25 ($39). I’ve found as the years have advanced carrying a bag of fixed lenses around is becoming difficult, and the intention was to use it with a “walk around” camera for more informal pictures. In 40yrs of photography this is my first ever zoom lens purchase, but I’ve found the lens just does not perform well. I have run a couple of test rolls of FP4 in DDX with my F2 on a tripod, one using the zoom and the other my 35, 50 & 105 AI lenses. I used the same three apertures (5.6,8,16) with all lenses. When I viewed the films with a loupe alongside each other on a light box, there is an appreciable difference, in both sharpness and contrast. Perhaps I expected more, but I wondered, has anyone else had this experience? Do these lenses vary, if they do have I bought a duff one?

You haven't bought a dud, my experience is that they are not a very good lens.

I bought one and on it's first trip in 1984 I came back very disappointed, no matter how I had shot, things were soft (ish) to say the least. I use hand held, tripod mounted, sitting on rocks with the self timer to alleviate any chance of movement on low shutter speeds. I visited the premier camera show in Melbourne shortly after where Nikon had a stand. They had one of those lenses there and I tried it alongside mine on a tripod. We were in a building with artificial light, but it looked the same as my own lens. Swapping for a quick look through the f/2.5 105mm lens was a revelation, sharp looking with wonderful contrast and no merging of colours when looking in murky light. I switched to prime lenses and have been pretty much with them since.

It's a reasonable lens, but not one that should ever had the Nikkor name on it.

I still have mine and it does get some use, usually when young nephews and nieces wish to use a film camera, but that is about it.

I did at one stage have an E series (I think) with a ring to zoom and a ring to focus, it was a modest unit and very good, certainly better than the 35-105. From memory it was a 35 to 70mm zoom and pretty much the perfect walk around a city lens. Unfortunately someone dropped it rather awkwardly, it never recovered.

Mick.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

According to David Ruether's site, this lens has some of the most sample-variable quality of any Nikon lenses he's tested. It may be you've just got a bad one.

I used mine frequently for years and never found it lacking in any respect. I rarely use it now as I'm shooting more with primes and faster lenses.

Here's one sample at around 105mm.

View attachment 116683

I think this likely comes closest to a possible explanation. Over the years I have read from many different sources the caution regarding sample variability in this particular lens.

I purchased my own AIS version brand new many years ago. It's arguably one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses I own. And I own about a dozen manual Nikkors collected over the last 35+ years, mostly primes. I've always assumed I just got very lucky that the salesperson didn't pick up the box on the shelf right next to it instead.

When I use 35mm, which is far less often these days than in the past, it's still my favored "walking around" lens for traveling light. Just a beautiful performer.

[Edit: In the photo below made at ~80mm with my 35-105 AIS sample notice the distant flagpole on the rooftop, to the left of the street light pole. Under high magnification of the negative one can easily see the resolved stripes, and just barely the stars, of that US flag. (Please excuse the over-sharpened scan quality as this was made for a CRT monitor using much more primitive hardware a long time ago.)]



Ken

P.S. That's a beautiful P-51 photograph. A wonderful sense of quiet presence...

 

[shutterfinger]

I bought a 35-135 f3.5-4.5 AF zoom new with my F4s. It is a very sharp lens. A prime will be a little sharper under critical evaluation.

 

[benveniste]

According to David Ruether's site, this lens has some of the most sample-variable quality of any Nikon lenses he's tested. It may be you've just got a bad one.

I agree. When this lens came out in the 1980's, at least where I lived there was a persistent rumor about a "bad second batch." As a result, I waited a year before buying mine. I still have it, but I really only use it when I bring the FA out to play. I'm not shock that primes and modern zooms have better optical performance, but it performs well enough to be a nice compromise of size and ultility. I've even used it reversed!

 

[David Lingham]

You haven't bought a dud, my experience is that they are not a very good lens.

It's a reasonable lens, but not one that should ever had the Nikkor name on it.

Mick.

Thanks Mick, says it all.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

You haven't bought a dud, my experience is that they are not a very good lens.

I bought one and on it's first trip in 1984 I came back very disappointed, no matter how I had shot, things were soft (ish) to say the least. I use hand held, tripod mounted, sitting on rocks with the self timer to alleviate any chance of movement on low shutter speeds. I visited the premier camera show in Melbourne shortly after where Nikon had a stand. They had one of those lenses there and I tried it alongside mine on a tripod. We were in a building with artificial light, but it looked the same as my own lens. Swapping for a quick look through the f/2.5 105mm lens was a revelation, sharp looking with wonderful contrast and no merging of colours when looking in murky light. I switched to prime lenses and have been pretty much with them since.

It's a reasonable lens, but not one that should ever had the Nikkor name on it.

I still have mine and it does get some use, usually when young nephews and nieces wish to use a film camera, but that is about it.

I did at one stage have an E series (I think) with a ring to zoom and a ring to focus, it was a modest unit and very good, certainly better than the 35-105. From memory it was a 35 to 70mm zoom and pretty much the perfect walk around a city lens. Unfortunately someone dropped it rather awkwardly, it never recovered.

Mick.

Maybe yours was one of the duds...