For the opportunity Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 1 lens review: 2.8 f = 135mm Many thanks to Andrei Mikhailovsky. By the way, Andrei is selling this lens, who are interested - write to him: Imprefekt@mail.ru
Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 1 review: 2.8 f = 135mm
Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 1: 2.8 f = 135mm is an old lens from the 1970s, my copy was made between 1971-73... Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 1: 2.8 f = 135mm is a class lens Non-ai or PRE AI, my copy is redone for AI, so I used it without any problems on Nikon D80 и Nikon D700. How to use old Nikon lenses can be found in the section on AI-S. There were several modifications of Nikon class 135 \ 2.8 MF lenses, the main ones are Nikon Q Auto, Nikon QC Auto, 135 / 2.8 KNikon AI 135 / 2.8, Nikon AI-S 135 / 2.8, Nikon 135 / 2.8 E.
Lens view Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 135 2.8 Non-Ai
The lens uses filters with a diameter of 52 mm, while focusing the front lens does not rotate, and the trunk of the lens is extended by 1 cm. The focus ring rotates 180 degrees and has a nice grip. The lens has a depth of field scale for F / 8, 16, 22. MDF leaves only 1.5 meters. The aperture can take a value from F / 2.8 to F / 22while the diaphragm device consists of 7 petals, when closing in the out of focus area, you can get the usual 'nuts'. The aperture blades are matte and do not reflect light.
Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 135 2.8 Non-aienlightenment and aperture blades
Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 1: 2.8 f = 135mm is made in Japan, and it is made very high quality - all of metal and glass, the focusing ring is not rubberized. The weight is about 600 grams, the lens is quite weighty. The optical design includes 4 elements in 4 groups, which is why the lens is called Nikkor-Q from 'Quatro '-' Four '.
Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 135 2.8 Non-ai on a modern Nikon D80 camera
Sample Photos
All sample photos from Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 135 2.8 Non-ai were made using a camera Nikon D700, JPEG L Fine, VI, ADL. Photos without processing, only reduced to 3 MP and imprinted data from EXIF.
Personal experience
It is very unfortunate that the huge history of the 135-current has not received its further development in the autofocus version. Nikon does not have an autofocus lens of class 135 \ 2.8, only expensive 135 \ 2.0, I would not refuse to have 135 \ 2.8 for a full frame. As for the Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 1: 2.8 f = 135mm, then this just a good old-tempered lens. Due to a decent focal length and good aperture ratio, you can easily control the depth of field.
| Image quality | 8 \ 10 | Well fixed major distortion |
| Aperture | 5 \ 10 | 2.8 is a kind of border between high-aperture and 'dark' optics. |
| IPIG Management | 6 \ 10 | 135 / 2.0 and 70-200 / 2.8, 70-210 / 4 deal better with this |
| Build quality | 10 \ 10 | Impeccable assembly |
| Price quality | 6 \ 10 | A little expensive for the manual, requires alteration for AI for a number of cameras |
| Overall rating from Radozhiva | 6 \ 10 | Low score due to lens age and manual focus |
Here are a couple of 135 currents:
- Soligor Tele-Auto 1:2.8 f = 135mm
- Jupiter-11 135mm F4.0
- Jupiter-37A 135mm F3.5
- Tair-11A 135mm F2.8
- Tamron 135mm F /2.5 MC
- AUTO Sears MC 1:2.8 f = 135mm
- Auto Revuenon 1:2.8 f = 135mm
- PENTACON auto 2.8/ 135 MC
Funny, the Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 135 2.8 Non-Ai turned out to be the hardest of the above.
Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 135 2.8 and Jupiter-37A, lens sizes
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Conclusions
Nikon Nikkor-Q Auto 1: 2.8 f = 135mm Non-AI is a good portrait lens for full frame cameras and can be used for almost any other creative endeavor. For normal use on modern cameras, you need to perform AI conversion. On cropped cameras Nikon DX can act as a 'long' portrait lens.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Dear discussion participants, I ask for your help.
I purchased the specified lens. On the Nikon d7100, he did not immediately stand up, rested on the protrusion of the diaphragm rheostat, the protruding part on the lens was sharpened.
There is a problem when focusing both through the viewfinder and through Live View, the image is sharp. However, there is no sharpness in the picture for fixation. In comparison, my Sigma 18-35 is just a razor.
I tried to focus in front of the subject and behind the subject, the sharpness is even lower.
Maybe someone came across. Where to look for a problem?
Photo examples https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/andrew023023/album/538577/
Reply
I have such a lens, I shoot at D800 with excellent sharpness, maybe yours need to disassemble and clean the lenses!
Reply
Although a lot of time has passed, but for those who will read the review and comments, I will say on the topic of supposedly poor sharpness: with a lens with such a focal length, and even with a crop it is hard to remove anything abruptly. The recommended shutter speed is 1 / F * 1.5, but I would still divide it by 2. Or a tripod or a 1/400 minimum. Most likely the author has problems with micro-lubricant, which he writes off to the lens.
Reply
Hello Arkady.
I bought such a lens. According to the results of use, I want to say that on crop it can only be used as a portrait. When photographing a face with aperture of 2.8 from three meters, the eyes are in focus, but the ears are gone. When photographing a full-length portrait at 2.8, the result is almost the same.
One gets the impression that at such a distance and with such a diaphragm, the sharpness zone is 2 centimeters. Anything closer or further is not sharp. Unscrew the aperture by 4, but this weakly saves.
The resolution of the lens is not high at any aperture and if it works for a portrait or a single flower, then the landscape is completely beyond its power. If you photograph a couple of trees, then there will be porridge.
At first I thought that it was only my copy so “tender”. Then he rummaged through the Internet, but never found a single photo with normal detail.
Reply
This is a PORTRAIT - what do you want from him? By your description, you do not understand what a portrait lens is and how it is valued. Buy whale glass and take pictures of bushes ...
Reply
What makes it clear that I don’t understand what a portrait lens is?
Reply
The same Nikon 180mm 2.8 is also a portrait painter, but its functional is much higher and can be used not only for portraiture.
And all these theoretical snot about the fact that the portrait should have only beautiful bokeh, and sharpness is almost contraindicated to him, since the next person may not like the condition of her skin, this is a kindergarten.
Then I want to spoil (improve) the image, for this there is photoshop.
Reply
I tried 80-200 / 2.8 on crop - also a very so-so idea to be honest. It turns out 120-300 / 2.8, the grip seems to be narrow, but somehow it did not impress me. Still, it is better to use such long lenses on a full frame, where the same 80-200 proved to be just excellent. And the sharpness is almost flawless and the blur is "nobler". And it focuses faster, it seems to me that the focus drive will be more powerful on a full frame.
Reply
Dear Andrey, can I answer you, because I am familiar with what you write. This is the so-called. spatial sharpness - to shoot sharply distant shots, usually almost none of the reviewers talks about this property of optical devices. This is irrelevant for portrait lenses and is sharpened for close to medium range shooting. I personally came across this very closely when I started working on one book, when I almost always had to and still have to shoot distant shots. Of course, all special telephones are designed specifically for this task. Of the cheap and useful lenses, the old Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 (not VC !!!) has very high spatial sharpness, and the Nikon 28-105 is very low. Here are the results for you (if, of course, they are useful), on a 10-point scale (I tested part of it myself, I took some of the information from one browser from the Internet, with whom I personally spoke many times and we agreed, in fact, this is easy to do on the basis of practical tests):
Voigtlander 58 / 1.4 - 10
Zeiss Distagon 28/2 - 10
Zeiss 100/2 Makro - 9.5
Zeiss 85 / 1.4 Plannar - 9.5
Zeiss Otus 55 / 1.4 - 9.5
Zeiss 135/2 Sonnar - 8.5
Zeiss Distagon 35/2 - 8.5
Voigtlander 125 Apo - 8.5
Nikon 85 / 1.4G - 8.0
Nikon 100/2 DC - 8.0
Zeiss Distagon 25/2 - 8.0
Zeiss Distagon 25/2.8 - 8.0
Nikon 45 PC-E - 8.0
Nikon 14-24 / 2.8 - 7.5
Nikon 35 / 2D - 7.5
Zeiss Milvus 50/2 - 7.5
Nikon 85 / 1.8G - 7.5
Nikon 105 / 2.5 Ai-S - 7.5
Nikon 135 / 2.8 Ai-S - 7.5
Zeiss Milvus 24/1.4 - 7.0
Nikon 24-70 / 2.8G - 7.0
Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 - 7.0
Nikon 70-300 Af-P - 7.0
Nikon 50 / 1.8D - 7.0
Nikon 50 / 1.8G - 7.0
Tokina 100/2 Macro - 7.0
Nikon 135/2 DC - 7.0
Nikon 20 / 1.8G - 7.0
Tamron 45 / 1.8 VC - 6.0
Nikon 60 / 2.8D Micro - 6.0
Nikon 70-200 / 4 VR - 6.0
Helios 40-2 - 6.0
Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC - 5.0
Nikon 16-35 / 4 - 5.0
Nikon 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 VR - 4.0
Now you can understand why top-end lenses are expensive and why they are bought, of course, in them and others the property is at the highest level.
If you need a portrait from 100-135 mm range, manual, with good spatial sharpness, then only two Nikon 105 / 2.5 Ai-S and Nikon 135 / 2.8 Ai-S are useful here, the latter also has micro-contrast (= tonal range) a little higher in sharpness, they are the same and excellent, exactly the same as the Nikon 50 / 1.8D or Tokina 100 / 2.8 Macro, which has all of the above features, in addition to beautiful macro and made perfectly, it also has excellent bokeh and is worth everything then 220-230 dollars (in China).
Reply
Thank you, very useful information.
Reply
the most interesting thing is that not a word is written about the sigma lens for Nikon F ???? Why ????
Reply
Less tantrums.
Reply
Thanks for the info. I would like to add that the 105mm Zonnar has very low spatial sharpness. I'll take a look at the Xenotar 105mm if I have a chance. I wonder if he is really that much better.
Reply
The Zonnars' secondary spectrum is too large for current cameras, therefore the resolution is low, although there are no complaints about the contrast at mid frequencies. Zonnar needs to recalculate for new glass, then most of the problems can be fixed, except for those that make him a Zonnar.
Reply
And didn’t you come across an Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-Q 135 / 3,5 for an hour?
How different is it?
Reply
I came across. Good solid lens. He had many modifications, ceased to be released in 1983, was replaced by version 135 / 2,8.
Reply
Hello everyone! Is it possible to install this lens through an adapter (which one?) On the Fujifilm X-T20? Cgfcb, j pf jndtn!
Reply
Yes you can. Adapter Nikon F (AI) - Fujifilm X-mount.
Reply
Thank you!
Reply
Arkady, good afternoon. Thank you so much for your work. You have the most interesting site on photothematics. Please tell me I choose what to buy Nikkor-Q Auto 1: 2.8 f = 135mm Non-AI or TAIR 11a. They are comparable in price (Tair is even more expensive). I already use Jupiter 37A (very satisfied) Nikon d800 camera. Thanks.
Reply
You can any of them, take a look at Nikon 105 2.5 Ai-S
Reply
Thanks for the reply.
Reply
Can you please tell me if this lens is suitable for the Nikon D5000 camera? Do you need some kind of adapter?
Reply
Will do.
Reply
No adapter needed, but it will be difficult to remove
Reply
Hello, can you please tell me if this lens is suitable for the nikon d850?
Reply
Only adapted
Reply
Thanks to mirrorless development, IMHO, we amateur rogues have the opportunity to try ancient good glasses for nothing on our dead DSLRs)).
the price of the issue with delivery for the device is approx. $ 40
Reply
After converting the lens (30 minutes, one screw only had to be unscrewed, the mount in my case did not have to be removed to remove the aperture adjustment ring) here, approximately, such photos are obtained on crop
Reply
photo without processing
Reply
This is how my copy of the lens looks like, where for conversion, in order to remove the aperture adjustment ring, you need to unscrew only one screw (in the photo it is in the foreground). The bayonet is attached with screws perpendicular to the axis of the lens, and not from the end.
Reply
Well, as a telephoto on a crop, it is very good in the picture, not only portraits (I compare with 55-200), as for me. Photo with on-camera JPEG without post-processing:
Reply