Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS observations

I recently obtained a Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS lens. That's about 200mm on a
D200 DSLR. Here's my observations:

1) It's great for isolating the subject with soft background. F/2 is a
lot softer than f/2.8 on my 70-200/2.8 and the bokeh is less prone to
hard edged rings with harsh background highlights. I tried doing some
tests of those two and the 105/2.8 macro... I'll have to do that more
carefully to be sure if there really is any better bokeh but there
certainly is *more* bokeh. It has a 9-bladed aperture but not rounded
edges so harsh highlights show the polygonal shape real clear even at
f/2.8 but if the background is soft enough to fade out, it looks nice &
creamy even at f/5.6. I don't expect using it for any purpose other than
wide open.

2) It's not very sharp, at least wide open which is the only reason I'd
use it. That's OK for portraits & that whole soft dreamy look. Sharper
would be nicer but the new version is mucho more expensive & this was a
fairly cheap old beater.

3) It's heavy as a tank but not terribly large: about the same bulk as
the 105/2.8 VR & considerably smaller than the 70-200/2.8 VR so less
intimidating for portraiture and quite discreet for street shooting
considering it's capabilities.

4) It doesn't focus very close (4-1/2 feet) and Bjorn R's review says
it's at it's worst sharpness at close focus. A head portrait is near the
closest focus. Anything past 25 feet or so and the ability to fully blur
out the background diminishes so it's a pretty specialized niche lens.
The bokeh holds up well with a Canon 500D +2diopter closeup lens but the
sharpness is total crap then and it has a bizarre 72mm filter thread so
the attachment is done taping it onto the built in retractable lens hood :-)

5) The focus ring is very stiff. This lens ain't for action shooting but
I suppose it was intentional, so that you can tune the focus in very
precisely & have it stay put. It's not too hard to see where you are
focused at a longer focal length like this with such a bright view.


Here's some sample shots:
Nature shots, 4 pages (some in this set are the Tokina 300mm f/2.8):
http://tinyurl.com/3xt7el
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/Natural-Areas/mount-davidson&PG=2

Another page of nature shots:
http://tinyurl.com/2uk5po
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/edgehill-garden/Nursery/plants/2007-06-19

Five shots of buildings & plants:
http://tinyurl.com/37m2hn
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neighborhoods/2007-06-19-hayes-noe&PG=1&PIC=4

Four shots; florist, people, buildings, mural:
http://tinyurl.com/2vat3v
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neighborhoods/2007-06-19-stanyan


--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Paul Furman wrote:

Five shots of buildings & plants:
http://tinyurl.com/37m2hn

Note this one:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neighborhoods/2007-06-19-hayes-noe&PG=1&PIC=3
"notice the chromatic abberation on the power lines how one angle comes
out green, the other purple... this was not correctable with CS ACR tools."

I'm not sure how to explain that. I didn't notice problems with CA other
than this one... partly because it's just not sharp enough to show probably.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

"Paul Furman" wrote
Note this one:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neighborhoods/2007-06-19-hayes-noe&PG=1&PIC=3
"notice the chromatic abberation on the power lines how one angle comes
out green, the other purple...

Doesn't look like chromatic aberration to me. CA is a prism-like blurring
in the
corners and edges. The direction of the 'color banding' will be radial.
Example:

http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/chromab.jpg

I would guess the power line problem is an artifact of the digital camera &
it's
associated image processing. Now and then image processing algorithms can
act
very strangely - especially those using 'neural-networks': like real neural
processes
the artificial ones occasionally hallucinate.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Paul Furman" wrote

5) The focus ring is very stiff.

It should be smooth and fast.

Most likely, the grease is old. Sometimes just working the lens back and
forth for 5-10 minutes will get it running again. If not then
a clean and lube of the helical will get it working. Some Nikkors
come apart very easily. Some are a bear - the old 300/4.5 is a
PITA. If you do a DIY lube then scratch line-up marks on everything:
especially a scratch across the internal barrels just as the helical(s)
part. Some AI teles have screws under the rubber focusing grip.

The focus can also be stiff because the lens got banged up. The
front ring et. al. may have been replace but the damage is deeper.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Paul Furman wrote:
I recently obtained a Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS lens. That's about 200mm on a
D200 DSLR. Here's my observations:

1) It's great for isolating the subject with soft background. F/2 is a
lot softer than f/2.8 on my 70-200/2.8 and the bokeh is less prone to
hard edged rings with harsh background highlights. I tried doing some
tests of those two and the 105/2.8 macro... I'll have to do that more
carefully to be sure if there really is any better bokeh but there
certainly is *more* bokeh. It has a 9-bladed aperture but not rounded
edges so harsh highlights show the polygonal shape real clear even at
f/2.8 but if the background is soft enough to fade out, it looks nice &
creamy even at f/5.6. I don't expect using it for any purpose other than
wide open.

2) It's not very sharp, at least wide open which is the only reason I'd
use it. That's OK for portraits & that whole soft dreamy look. Sharper
would be nicer but the new version is mucho more expensive & this was a
fairly cheap old beater.

3) It's heavy as a tank but not terribly large: about the same bulk as
the 105/2.8 VR & considerably smaller than the 70-200/2.8 VR so less
intimidating for portraiture and quite discreet for street shooting
considering it's capabilities.

You're tempting me to get the 135mm Carl Zeiss f/1.8 for my Minolta, er,
Konica-Minolta, er, Sony, er...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Paul Furman wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

Five shots of buildings & plants:
http://tinyurl.com/37m2hn


Note this one:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neighborhoods/2007-06-19-hayes-noe&PG=1&PIC=3

"notice the chromatic abberation on the power lines how one angle comes
out green, the other purple... this was not correctable with CS ACR tools."

I'm not sure how to explain that. I didn't notice problems with CA other
than this one... partly because it's just not sharp enough to show
probably.

I've seen similar effects with the KM Maxxum 7D where there was contrast
(branches) against snow. Lowering the exposure fixed it.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Jun 21, 2:49 am, "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote

Note this one:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Fran...
"notice the chromatic abberation on the power lines how one angle comes
out green, the other purple...

Doesn't look like chromatic aberration to me. CA is a prism-like blurring
in the
corners and edges. The direction of the 'color banding' will be radial.
Example:

http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/chromab.jpg

That's lateral chromatic aberration: different colours brought to
focus on the correct plane but with a lateral shift. Longitudinal (or
axial) chromatic aberration results in single-coloured fringing. For
axial CA, the colour of the fringes depends on whether the object
being imaged is in front of or behind the plane of focus. So what Paul
sees could well be axial chromatic aberration. Or it could be
something else, I don't know.


I would guess the power line problem is an artifact of the digital camera &
it's
associated image processing. Now and then image processing algorithms can
act
very strangely - especially those using 'neural-networks': like real neural
processes
the artificial ones occasionally hallucinate.


That's interesting; which image processing algorithms used in cameras
or raw converters use NNs?

Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Five shots of buildings & plants:

Note this one:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neighborhoods/2007-06-19-hayes-noe&PG=1&PIC=3

"notice the chromatic abberation on the power lines how one angle
comes out green, the other purple... this was not correctable with CS
ACR tools."

I'm not sure how to explain that. I didn't notice problems with CA
other than this one... partly because it's just not sharp enough to
show probably.

I've seen similar effects with the KM Maxxum 7D where there was contrast
(branches) against snow. Lowering the exposure fixed it.

Yes, maybe it's just purple fringing and one angle just lines up with
the greens in the bayer pattern? I never heard of green fringing before
though.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:
I recently obtained a Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS lens. That's about 200mm on a
D200 DSLR. Here's my observations:

1) It's great for isolating the subject with soft background. F/2 is a
lot softer than f/2.8 on my 70-200/2.8 and the bokeh is less prone to
hard edged rings with harsh background highlights. I tried doing some
tests of those two and the 105/2.8 macro... I'll have to do that more
carefully to be sure if there really is any better bokeh but there
certainly is *more* bokeh. It has a 9-bladed aperture but not rounded
edges so harsh highlights show the polygonal shape real clear even at
f/2.8 but if the background is soft enough to fade out, it looks nice &
creamy even at f/5.6. I don't expect using it for any purpose other than
wide open.

2) It's not very sharp, at least wide open which is the only reason I'd
use it. That's OK for portraits & that whole soft dreamy look. Sharper
would be nicer but the new version is mucho more expensive & this was a
fairly cheap old beater.

3) It's heavy as a tank but not terribly large: about the same bulk as
the 105/2.8 VR & considerably smaller than the 70-200/2.8 VR so less
intimidating for portraiture and quite discreet for street shooting
considering it's capabilities.

You're tempting me to get the 135mm Carl Zeiss f/1.8 for my Minolta, er,
Konica-Minolta, er, Sony, er...

I got started on this when I saw an AF 85/1.4 Nikkor available... and
missed it at a good price, then looked at the MF version but it wasn't
supposed to be that great, then noticed the new Zeiss MF 85/1.4 was
about the same price as an AF Nikkor but reviews said it wasn't really
that great for cost of no AF.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

"Paul Furman" wrote in message . net...

I recently obtained a Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS lens. That's about 200mm on a D200 DSLR. Here's my observations:
[...]
2) It's not very sharp, at least wide open which is the only reason I'd use it. That's OK for portraits & that whole soft dreamy
look. Sharper would be nicer but the new version is mucho more expensive & this was a fairly cheap old beater.

Here's what I have to say about it on my Nikkor comparison list at
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
"heavy and large, very sharp center to corner at f2 at mid to long distances
but with some very slight field curvature barely detectable at wide stops
near infinity; performance is poor near minimum focus at wide stops (both
conditions together), otherwise this lens is excellent even wide open" - and
I rate it "4.9" beyond about 10' (almost as good as any lens gets), "3" at
minimum focus (almost the worst of any Nikkor at any distance), with
three samples checked. This is FF on film (and BTW, I have one FS...;-).
I think you got a lemon (you did say it was a beater...) - this lens is
normally, used with an understanding of its shortcoming, really excellent!)

4) It doesn't focus very close (4-1/2 feet) and Bjorn R's review says it's at it's worst sharpness at close focus. A head portrait
is near the closest focus. Anything past 25 feet or so and the ability to fully blur out the background diminishes so it's a
pretty specialized niche lens.

Hey, B. R. agrees with me (as he often does...;-).
And at - http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Bjorn Rorslett says
about this lens, "I recently reran tests with the 135/2 on my D2X and
was actually quite surprised and pleased by the results. Image sharpness
at closer range still needed some stopping down (to f/4) to get really
crisp, but for distant subjects, I found the 135/2 capable of delivering
quite sharp images even set wide open." The lens is useful for minimizing
DOF at 20+' on film, and is useful when speed is useful at greater
distances (i.e., for night, aerial, sports, etc. shooting), and for soft
portraits close in, or for sometimes-interesting foliage/flower photos.
A sharp macro lens it is not...;-)

[...]
5) The focus ring is very stiff. This lens ain't for action shooting but I suppose it was intentional, so that you can tune the
focus in very precisely & have it stay put. It's not too hard to see where you are focused at a longer focal length like this with
such a bright view.
[...]
--
Paul Furman Photography

They appear to all be somewhat stiff in focus (but should be smooth).
I guess that is so they hold focus when pointed up or down - the lens
is heavy. I would try another sample...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether