Nikkor 135 2.8 AI vs 135 3.5 AI-S Comparison Images, Advice/Opinion Wanted.

B

bigearl91

Suspended / Banned
Messages
214
Edit My Images
No
Hello,

I am looking for some advice, firstly on my 'testing' methods and secondly opinions on these lens differences.

It is worth noting both these lenses produce tremendous images, even with a pillok like me using them.

I setup something simple with an attempt to test the differences between these lenses, nothing scientific, nor real world, just a reasonably controlled scene. I should point out I am aware of 2 things: one being the monitor has gone into standby for the 3.5 shots, and the other, I had forgot to change my keyboard to a uniform lighting setting so it twinkles which means between images the keys may be brighter than others.

The reason for this test is - I don't see the point in owning both, and although I don't use it very often its a nice to get these out occasionally. I know for a fact that, if I only ever had one of these I would be delighted with the results.

To make it a bit more challenging the foreground lighting is "daylight" through a softbox and the light I used to force some highlights through the glass is incandescent. I setup a ruler to help confirm the focal plane, however refocused every shot at each aperture on the "Sharpie" lettering.

The white balance was adjusted on all the images simply to "Daylight" in Lightroom to give a proper representation of the colour rendition. Left everything else default and exported them as 100% quality and 240 DPI, full size with no output sharpening.

These lenses are very close in my opinion, and I often find I prefer the results of either one depending on the day, but before I go ahead and make a decision I wanted to ask on the wisdom everyone (who cares):

I will start with links to the Flickr Albums containing sets of full size images, they are in this order:
Wide open,
f4,
f5.6,
f8,
f11
f.2.8/3.5 - Closest focus
f2.8/3.5 - Infinite
f2.8/3.5 - ~10m focus (these are marginally different)

135 2.8 AI
https://flic.kr/s/aHskHq4n7i

135 3.5 AI-S
https://flic.kr/s/aHskMscwws

Below are 100% side by side comparisons, in each picture the 2.8 is on the left and 3.5 on the right. A focal point, lower right, center and out of focus highlights is shown for comparison.

Wide open 100% side by side
https://www.flickr.com/gp/137013171@N03/wg8212

f4 100% side by side
https://flic.kr/s/aHskPtGmKZ

f5.6 100% side by side
https://flic.kr/s/aHskPtGmKP

f8 100% side by side
https://flic.kr/s/aHskPtGmKi

Also here are the original RAW files, and 100% jpeg exports.
https://mega.nz/#F!pdsyXDoI!PoYAdZHppLJugsFiefmFrQ


To me it seems the AI 2.8 is cooler than the AI-S 3.5.

I also find the aberrations wide open to be much worse on the 2.8, both seem to be reasonable from f4 onward. Look at the close focus shots, the rulers edge is way worse on the 2.8 than 3.5.

Aberrations are much more controlled wide open on the 3.5. (This is only apparent at 100% - do not judge the below photos)

2.8 Closest focus distance


3.5 Closest focus distance


The sharpness is better on the 3.5 wide open (in my opinion).
The contrast is better on the 3.5 wide open (in my opinion).
All these issues change by f4 on both and they level out.

The out of focus highlights are much more pronounced cat-eyes with the 2.8, throughout the aperture range.
135 3.5 (focused ~10m)


135 2.8 (focused ~10m)


The bokeh is overall nicer on the 2.8 however I have found in the lower extremes the 3.5 has sometimes given softer highlights, mainly due to the less cat eye like appearance. Is this instance the 2.8 trumps the 3.5 in the lower right comparison.


All comments welcome, I am leaning slightly towards the 3.5 but would love to be convinced that the 2.8 is by far the superior lens. The difference in light gathering isn't overly important with regards to exposure requirements, only for creative control.

Please, constructive criticism on how I tested them very appreciated so dig in.

Regards
Earl
 
Last edited:
Generally the ais lenses have improved coatings over the ai so the contrast will be better.
I agree the bokeh is nice with the 3.5.
I have the 2.8 Ai and feel it has a "cool" look, certainly compared to modern lenses.


I just wish Nikon would bring out a smaller DF with a decent manual focusing screen so that we can all use these old gems.
 
Peter123 said:
Generally the ais lenses have improved coatings over the ai so the contrast will be better.
I agree the bokeh is nice with the 3.5.
I have the 2.8 Ai and feel it has a "cool" look, certainly compared to modern lenses.


I just wish Nikon would bring out a smaller DF with a decent manual focusing screen so that we can all use these old gems.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am currently trying to find a manufacturer that will create my adapter to fit the DK-17M to the lower end bodies (e.g. D750) which will help a touch. I dread the day my eyesight starts going.
 
Based on nothing but the pure 'aesthetics' of the images I prefer the f2.8. I've learnt to look past flaws and just look at which I prefer the rendering of.
 
snerkler said:
Based on nothing but the pure 'aesthetics' of the images I prefer the f2.8. I've learnt to look past flaws and just look at which I prefer the rendering of.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input, when you start doing comparisons like this its easy to pick up subtle differences that can be classed as pros and cons based on personal preference. It's reasonably common knowledge both these lenses let light through, in a charming fashion, and are very enjoyable to shoot with (as is the 105 2.5). I wish I had never bought the 2.8 as I think this personal decision could go on until the cows come home.

With the differences being so subtle it's probably best to sell the 3.5, enjoy the marginally better light gathering properties of 2.8 and have done with it. they are both in brilliant condition but the 2.8 is immaculate in all senses. I'll wait and see if anyone else can throw some wisdom into the mixer and if not, probably chuck one of them on here for sale.

Cheers
Earl
 
I've got a f2.8 AI as well. The only thing I could honestly knock it for is that the level of bokeh fringing can be quite high and the diaphragm has 7 extremely straight blades. Otherwise it's a very compact lens that always produces excellent results. I don't use mine much anymore as the 80-200 f2.8 zoom is so good at 135, it's very hard to tell the two apart.

Coatings wise, the f3.5 AI-s lens is from the early 80's, so it'll be NIC coated not SIC coated and therefore the same as any multicoated nikkor from the 70's to the mid 90's. (they didn't make the f3.5 version for long)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top