According provided by lens Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI) huge thanks to the store www.fotika.com.uawhere you can find a huge number of different used photographic equipment, including this model.
Review of Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
There are two versions of the Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 lens:
- MKI presented in this review. It was produced from 1986 to 1988.
- MKII, with a redesigned case but with the same optical design. It was produced from 1988 to 1998. Visually, you can quickly distinguish from the MKI version by a rubberized focus ring. Review can be found here.
And also there is an older version Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (AI-S) without support for auto focus.
Basic information on Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
Nikon AF 35-135 / 3.5-4.5 MKI - very similar to its 'little brother' - Nikon AF Nikkor 35-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI), the only significant difference is that it is shorter both externally and in focal length.
During the release of the first Nikkor autofocus zoom lenses, to which this strong man belongs, the depth of field scale was removed from them, which was very unusual in those distant days of manual optics. In addition, the first non-TOP autofocus lenses were equipped with such narrow plastic focusing rings as on this copy. It is said that in those days, photographers "spat" from such a decision. History repeats itself - now many 'spit' from other simplifications in modern lenses :)
Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
The lens is made in Japan, the build quality is not bad, the lens itself is quite heavy, weighs more than 600 grams. Also, the lens in the most compact position (at 35mm focal length and when focusing at infinity) is quite long. On the copy that I visited in the review, the zoom ring rotates tight.
Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
Nikon AF 35-135 / 3.5-4.5 MKI has a fairly fast autofocus. But, like other similar lenses of that era, it has an oversized MDF (in the normal state of the lens), which is as much as 1.4 meters, which sometimes creates inconvenience in work.
The focus ring is plastic; during automatic focusing, it rotates and cannot be touched at this time. The stroke of the ring is 75 degrees. During focusing, the front lens of the lens travels forward and rotates. During zooming, the rear lens moves inside the lens, the trunk of the lens lengthens, but does not rotate.
Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI) with native hood HB-1
The Nikon AF 35-135 / 3.5-4.5 MKI has a macro shooting mode. To go into macro mode, you must set focal lengthequal to 135mm, press the dedicated 'M' button and rotate the wide rubberized zoom ring to the 'M' mark. In this position, you can shoot macro with a maximum magnification ratio of 1: 3.5 (the focusing distance is 38 cm). Macro auto focus does not work... In macro mode, the Nikon AF 35-135 / 3.5-4.5 MKI focus ring becomes almost useless, and for focusing you will have to move the entire camera.
In macro mode, only auto focus is turned off, but the rest of the automation is controlled exposure the control of the aperture is retained. When switching from 135mm to macro mode, you can visually see how the focal length decreases, but at the same time the minimum focusing distance decreases. Most likely, in those days it was impossible to technically implement a more convenient macro mode. In addition, the maximum magnification of 1: 3.5 is rather weak to be called a true 'macro' :(. The Nikon AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5D (with focus limiter, range 50-105mm for macro mode and preservation of auto focus).
Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI) with the HB-1 native hood in the ZK
Auto focus with Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI) lens available only when using him on cameras with built-in motor focusing. An exact and complete list of Nikon CZKs that support auto focus with 'AF' lenses can be found in the 'Auto focus on Nikon cameras'. There is no focus mode switch on the lens itself, to translate the lens into manual mode focus should put the camera in manual mode focusing using the switch located near the camera mount.
The lens has an aperture control ring. So that he starts working normally on modern Nikon cameras, you need to set the value F / 22, using the aperture control ring on the lens itself, after which the ring itself will lock with a special button, which is located to the left of the F / 3.5 mark. After such manipulation, it will be possible to control the aperture directly from the camera, for more details in the section about Non-G Lenses. The lens has a focusing distance scale and two marks (35 and 105mm) for focusing in the infrared spectrum (for 35 and 135mm).
Please note that Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI) does not transmit focus distance values into the camera, which may give errors in exposure, especially when shooting with flash in TTL auto modes.
Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI) on ZK
Unlike many other lenses, the Nikon AF 35-135 / 3.5-4.5 MKI has a slightly larger aperture at the long end. Usually universal lenses have F / 5.6 at maximum focal length, and F / 4.5 is half a foot lighter. The lens has a 3,86x zoom, which is not bad for 1986, but 30 years have already passed, and now there are much more powerful station wagons with a range of focal lengths 28-200 and even 28-300mm.
Nikon AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5D and Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
Optically, the lens turned out to be rather weak, first of all, weak sharpness at 135@4.5, and in general the lens is 'soft' at open apertures. Version MKII not much better. Also, on Nikon DX cameras, the lens is not the most convenient EGF - for shooting indoors, the width is not always enough, but on the street, the Nikon AF 35-135 / 3.5-4.5 MKI can be useful as a walking street lens :)
Here link to the archive with the originals - 479 MB, 48 photos in .NEF format (RAW) from the camera D700 (FX) and Nikon D80 (DX).
Nikon AF Nikkor 28-85mm 1: 3.5-4.5 и Nikon AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5D and Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
List of all Nikon FX 35-XXX autofocus lenses:
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1: 2.8 (MKI)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1: 2.8D (MKII)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1: 3.3-4.5 (MKI)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1: 3.3-4.5 (MKII)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm 1: 4-5.6D (MKI)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm 1: 4-5.6D (MKII)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKII)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 D (MKIII)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI)
- Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKII)
The catalog of modern universal lenses for Nikon can be look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.
Results
Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5 (MKI) - an old 'all-rounder' for full-format cameras, it can still do a good job, but, against the background of modern super-sharp zooms, it feels lonely and abandoned.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval.
Never understood these focal points. 35 - 135 long at the short end and not long enough at the long end. 28 - 80 - the same. 35-105 it is not at all clear what. By definition - shirik 10-18, portrait photographers 50, 85, 135 and above - telephoto. I understand that the lens described above is suitable for portrait photography, but the aperture ratio for a portrait lens is rather weak.
Reply
taking into account the fact that it was primarily a full frame, film. then 35mm is quite wide. Well, I'm ready to challenge the "aperture for a portrait", what should people do in medium format with holes 3.5-5.6? do not take pictures of people?
and why did they get that portrait should be shot at 1.2-1.4?
maybe it's a colorful Indian with a textured face and facial expressions? and there 4 or 5.6 just right. Well, such lenses always came on every day to take pictures of children, portrait, travel. just like now there are all sorts of 28-300 and 18-300.
PS portrait is a genre, not a standard of aperture. and this word appeared much earlier than lenses. and if you recall the artists, they painted all their paintings in sharpness both front and back, and portraits 2-3 meters long were also detailed, and the one who could better convey facial features, mood, facial expressions and all sorts of other things was special held in high esteem.
Reply
+1
Reply
And then Picasso appeared.)
Reply
It is advisable to shoot a portrait at 2 or 2.8, something already. Portraits of artists depended on the matrix (eyes), and as you know, the matrix there is quite small and the depth of field was complete. Photography is a slightly different genre. Of course, you can blur the background at 135 with an aperture of 3.5, but the distance to the object is quite large, which is not always convenient. Ideally, the smaller the focal length and the more open the aperture, the easier it is to achieve a blurred background, which is most often needed when shooting a portrait. And we are not talking about a "colorful Indian", it has nothing to do with it. The larger the aperture, the more room to maneuver. Nobody forces you to shoot completely open.
Reply
I will not develop controversy, but commentary from the category is about nothing.
most people again think that open diaphragms add some charm and professionalism.
and if we talk about maneuverability, then you are contradicting yourself, in your case there is more (this is 1.2-2.0), in this case you won’t especially accelerate on a small flu.
Reply
"Ideally, the smaller the focal length and the more open the aperture, the easier it is to achieve a blurry background."
- crap ... the LARGER the focal point and the more open the diaphragm.
Reply
+, burned another “photo shooter” from the battalion of sofa analysts.
I will not tire of repeating, shoot, shoot and shoot. because the picture and level are given by hands, not optics or a camera.
Reply
Plus
Reply
And here I am also a plus. Earlier I also thought that aperture 1.4 is stuffing. But over time, I change my mind. Aperture 1.4 at focal 50mm and 85mm is g ... but. Yes, there is no question, she lathers the background into chips, but the DOF for the portrait is SO small that only the eyes or the tips of the eyelashes are sharp, I am talking about the chest and facial portrait (and then if the person is STRICTLY turned on his face), but the temples and the ears are already turning into kosher boke. Taking myself an 80-200mm f2.8D, I realized that a front and chest portrait can be made at both the 4th and 5,6 apertures with a focal length of 135 and higher, but there DOF captures ALL of the person's face and even the ears are sharp and details are visible on them , but the background on such a focal point, even at f8, is gorgeously blurred, unless of course the background is not a meter behind the person but further away. As a result, I want to say that on the glass from this review at a focal length of 135 (and even on KROP-e) with an aperture of 4,5, you can get an awesome face or chest portrait with a beautifully blurred background.
Reply
And just recently, one sick patient with foam at the mouth proved to me that for portrait photography, the most important is the aperture ratio (and the focal one is generally in the background), and that it is generally impossible to achieve bokeh with an aperture of F / 8))) Even examples of bokeh with F / 8 (at 550 mm focal length) did not help to prove otherwise ...))
Reply
yes, wrong.
Reply
Fotika - shoot, shoot and shoot. You yourself are a wanker.
Trehsotkovich - yes, it is clear that the depth of field is selected based on the conditions. But nevertheless, when there is an opportunity to maneuver towards a more open one, it gives more opportunities for the realization of some "perverted" arts. I am now shooting a black nut on tamron 18-200, helios 58, and I want to take 50 / 1.8 mk1. lying around the same 28-80, which I do not use anywhere and I do not understand why it is like that. Well, for FF, of course, somewhere else, like a whale, but on a crop - absolutely not needed. Therefore, this 35-135 is like a telephoto lens and a portrait lens, but it's not wider. And then on FF, on the crop, it will be just like a telephoto.
Reply
28-80 helped me a lot on the crop, when the whale went for repairs. As for the rest, yes, it was in demand for all sorts of f55, now it is not easy to find a use for it. But this is only because the choice of glass is extremely wide today. I, too, how I wound a tamron 18-250 without a stub, so the whale is 18-55 BP and is resting. https://cloud.mail.ru/public/L8SZ/oo1kWSp5N
Reply
About artists and SF it's cool ... And no one really spits from Zeiss for a lot of bucks with a hole 4. And no one says: For Mona Lisa, the background is not blurred into shit, guard ...
Reply
Arkady and what likes can only be tweeted?
Reply
No, you can click on all the buttons of social networks.
Reply
You can reap, if only there is an account. For example, I don’t have Twitter, it’s useless to reap. (^ __ ^)
Reply
the words “feels lonely and abandoned” smiled))))
Reply
but I personally like the resulting pictures from this lens, more than from 18-105G whale on D90 ... somehow the colors are softer chtoli ...
Reply
In my opinion, Nikon D-series glasses that screwdrivers convey a picture more adequately without embellishment. From old glasses, even processing a photo by color is practically not necessary if the white balance on the camera does not junk.
Reply
this 35-135 is a little older, non-D
Reply
Yes. Nevertheless, the old glass gives out a PRESENT color and not embellished, if only they had sharpness and anti-glare protection like the new ones))) Take the same Helios Soviet, the picture in it is gorgeous, the colors too, but the sharpness and white veil for the whole frame with side or direct flashes to any gates. That is why I poured mud on all Soviet glasses in all branches, due to low glare resistance, and due to the fact that 60% of the frames in white haze are obtained.
Reply
It’s not clear why the remaining 40% of the shots came out when shooting against the light?) At one time I shot a lot with ZENIT with Helios 44 m (about 200 films). I’ll not say that everything was perfect, but the figure of 60%, voiced here, caused a genuine smile on my face. At that time there was still one serious problem - film. Let me name you several Soviet lenses that I used and which certainly should not be sprinkled with mud “in all branches”: Jupiter 37 A version of MC, Kalinar 5 N, Mir 1 C, Helios 44, Vega 12 B, Zenitar M, the one that is 1,7, Industar 61, Helios 81H .... I don’t pray for Helios 40. Apparently you are out of luck with a specific instance. Try another lens from the list.
Reply
The remaining 40% came from the fact that I took a picture in the shade where there is neither side nor back light))) And 60% I figuratively said, I did not count, but the first time I realized that even with whale glass 18-55 Nikon, a normal result is much faster than with Soviet helios) After which I started to hate in my heart for Soviet lenses, and I always associate them with a white veil throughout the frame))) But I do not say so. This is personally my position. In any case, on the set for money, I do not recommend shooting with such a rarity. The same Nikonovsky 50mm f1.8G will be preferable and not too expensive even for amateurs. You need to learn a photo with good technique, and not with a film Fed 5c) that I recently tried)))
Reply
the good thing is that we were born in a cool time, and there is an opportunity to shoot new and good. But among the manuals there are also good lenses, I once started with Praktica LTL with a standard Pentacon auto 1,8 / 50 lens. And I will say that I received much better frames than with the canon 10d + 28-135 is usm. here to each his own.
ps although under the USSR a lot of things were done qualitatively, but to Soviet optics I treat the same as to Lada)))
Reply
The main thing is to separate what technique and for what tasks to use, naturally, the Soviet fix with manual focus, it is more difficult to photograph both for the photographer and the model. It's just harder for them to photograph, longer, harder to focus, even with an autofocus trap. Therefore, those who make their living from photography will choose what gives the best result, less marriage, with less effort. I can say from myself that I have two fixes Nikon 50 f1.8G, 85 f1.8D, and Soligor 100 f3.5AF, but I also use Tair-11A with pleasure. A comparison with Zhiguli, in my opinion, is incorrect, because 10 years ago I changed my "nine" for the first new foreign car and there is no more desire to get into the Zhiguli (I tried it once - definitely not :)). And Tairom to shoot the desire is :)
Reply
Helios needs to be able to shoot. And it is not suitable for all subjects. If you know how he shoots - a very good tool, not like a whale.
Reply
Gene, if you have only a whale and helios, then it is not so difficult to find a use for helios. And when you take an autofocus fifty kopeck, then it’s not Helios that you’ll look thoughtfully
Reply
“White veil” - I'm sure that you shoot with full-frame Soviet lenses on a cropped camera! make a Soviet lens with a crop too! reduce the diameter of the front lens with the lowering rings and put on a hood, you will be pleasantly surprised ... or use a full-frame camera like a lens!
PS: manual optics is not autofocus for you (^_^)
Reply
About lowering rings - nonsense, get vignetting. Learn materiel. I agree about the lens hood - what is better is not a petal, but a long cylindrical one, making sure that there was no vignetting again. If there is a desire to cut off the unnecessary part of the light flux, then this should be done after the rear lens.
Reply
I was not too lazy, took out my Helios 44M 80 years old. Now 18.00. I stood against the sun, though I didn’t let it in the frame. 10 degrees to the sun. he got killed Helios and you made such a hasty, however, as always, conclusion, having trumpeted about it by all means, or you had a dream.
Reply
You are not right. Helios is really VERY afraid of flare. And on this basis, you need to shoot so that there is no flare, or apply countermeasures. Well, you need to refine it.
Reply
Softish - that's putting it mildly! :) Although the photos are great.
Reply
Having bought a copy in me, I don’t know how it’s in you, but in me where it’s mega povilnym, but melodiously the most potent ob' яktiv, like I’m injected with Volodya. To deliver a lot of software for all focal points on the screen, and before that, let’s see the photos.
Reply
it’s also like that тут, ale it was here that everything happened to lie down in a particular instance.
tsiy bіlsh mensh zhivchik))
Reply
The lens from the review focuses quickly on the d700.
Reply
It’s possible that the cause of the bull is valid in instances, since you can scroll through the autofocus from the MDF to infinity without any trouble for up to 2-3 seconds.
Reply
To everyone who drove to Arcadia that he had poor-quality video reviews with staggered defocus, rolling eyes! Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD8YKTpgoCM and after you watch until the end, if you can of course))) (I could not) unsubscribe if you like the reviews of Arkady))) Everything is known in comparison. Have a nice day everyone.
Reply
Offtop in the branch.
Reply
All I am silent Arkady)
Reply
Your curls become familiar ((.
Reply
Arkady, in your review you write that the first and second versions of this lens have the same optical design. However, in the article on the second version (https://radojuva.com.ua/2014/09/nikon-af-nikkor-35-135-3-5-4-5-mk2/), you write that the schemes are different. So after all, what about the optical design of the first and second versions?
Reply
Fixed
Reply
About 30 years ago, the book "Portrait" was published by Meiot Magnus and Jorge Luinsky. So they shot a portrait at 11 or 16. And this is a professor of photography, he does not understand something, there was no word boke then, it was invented about 15 years ago. More 10 years ago, for a blurred background, they could ... It turns into some kind of idiocy, people go to a beautiful landscape, but you will smear it anyway, then you can photograph the garden, sorry, maybe I made some grammatical mistakes, I did not study well at school, because
that he took pictures all the time
Reply
strange logic. 30 years ago a lot of things were different. So what?
We have already discussed a lot that, by today's standards, photos taken 30 years ago were made with a lot of purely technical defects. problems with focus and color, etc. are also visible.
bokeh just did not come up 15 years ago, see photos of the 1950s for example))))
and the fashion for blur comes and goes. fashion for type - Hollywood or whatever. this is just fine.
Reply
You have to look at blur as an artistic tool, and then everything falls into place. As before, and today, blur was appreciated in the portrait ... Previously, good portrait photographers were only studio ones, today you can buy a wearable version, that's the whole difference. What invests in it depends on everyone. The tendency “I can't take pictures because there is no“ light lens ”occupies a certain niche of people.”
Reply
I suppose that these professors (Meiot Magnus and Jorge Luinsky) did not even shoot in medium format, but on a sheet - there are different apertures on the optics.
Reply
Arkady hello. I need your help. Please tell me which lens is better to buy for Nikon D 90 -
(Tamron AF 18-200mm f / 3.5-6.3 Di II LD - for Nikon) ..
or
(Nikon Zoom Nikkor 70-210 mm f / 4-5.6) .. or
(Tamron AF 70-300mm f / 4-5.6 Di LD macro 12 Nikon F) ... or
(Nikon AF-S 18-135 mm f / 3.5-5.6 ED-IF DX zoom) ... or
(Nikon 18-105 mm f / 3.5-5.6G AF-S ED DX VR) .. thanks
Reply
I think it all depends on the goals and the available objective park ...
If we consider one single option for all cases, then I would take the Nikon AF-S 18-135 mm f / 3.5-5.6 ED-IF DX zoom.
Reply
And what are the goals of shooting? And is there at least some lens to the d90 already? If there is nothing, then I am for Nikon 18-105vr. A simple, inexpensive, reliable and proven lens. Take it and take it off, for six months or a year it will be enough for sure, even with very active use, and then buy something else (not because 18-105 will break, but because you want something new).
Reply
Nikkor 35-135 is a wonderful lens. The Japanese did nothing in vain, and in those days, even more so, yes, he does not have D, does not convey distance, but what lenses, solid glass. I had 28-70 2.8, honestly - I did not like it. Neither the picture, nor the weight, nor the more focal. The soul did not lay down. The wide angle of 24mm f3.5 is enough. And this one is good, only the rotation of the front lens confuses. Lens 35-135 solid gut. These are all personal considerations.
Reply
Thank you for your wonderful reviews, I always read about glasses first here, and then, if I can’t find it here, then on other resources. In this description, there are complaints about the soapiness of the picture on open diaphragms. I myself am a lover of old glasses and I want to see examples of this soap. And in your gallery only sharp and beautiful pictures. I have different old lenses and, with some blur, I’m even ready to put up with it, but it’s very cheap. I'm tired of reselling, so you have to look for examples to know what you're going for. Thanks.
Reply