Another Lens for the Collection

My "new" 30-something Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 sits in my studio. I had never seen one in the field, so I think it's safe to say it was an undiscovered asset. The outward-swooping colored lines are the depth of field scale, which changes with focal length. — My “new” 30-something Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 sits in my studio. I had never seen one in the field, so I think it’s safe to say it was an undiscovered asset. The outward-swooping colored lines are the depth of field scale, which changes with focal length.

My readers know I love lenses for more than just photographic reasons. I think they are beautiful, art unto themselves, and worthy of having just because it’s fun to have them.

The trouble with a philosophy like this is that it can get pretty expensive, so I make a point to wait and wait and wait for bargains, hand-me-downs, and rough-looking but optically workable lenses.

You can label me "old school," but I find nothing shameful in appreciating craftsmanship from the past, like this superbly-made aperture ring on the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5. — You can label me “old school,” but I find nothing shameful in appreciating craftsmanship from the past, like this superbly-made aperture ring on the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5.

Sometimes I will buy a lens I don’t need or even want all that much if it’s a really great bargain. Lately I am seeing rock bottom prices on 1980s-era Nikon lenses, usually zoom lenses I never saw in the field.

Our neighbor's goats aren't as friendly as the goats Abby and I owned years ago, but they remain curious, and are very fun to photograph. — Our neighbor’s goats aren’t as friendly as the goats Abby and I owned years ago, but they remain curious, and are very fun to photograph.

An interesting paradox about these lenses is that my fellow photographers and I regarded these lenses (particularly zoom lenses) as sub-standard back then, but in the nearly 40 years since that era began, there are tons of not very good, plasticky lenses being sold as industry standard.

My most recent purchase was a mostly-unknown lens, the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 of 1983 vintage. The web seems to think it was made from 1982 to 1984. I paid $30 for it.

The Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 sits next to a 62mm filter and steel screw-in lens hood, both of which I already had as part of a large collection of photo junk.

The day the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 arrived I put it to work on my Nikon D700 at a basketball game I was covering for my newspaper, and, as you can see, it delivered what I asked of it: it is decently sharp and easy to use under the stress of working in a low-light environment.

I was actually shopping for a 135mm from that period. At one time or another I actually owned three 135s, two f/3.5s and one f/2.8. They were all sharp and a pleasure to use, and I missed the focal length, despite being able to make 135mm with several zoom lenses.

Chickens are fun to photograph, both because they are interesting-looking, but also because they are easy to focus on with manual-focus lenses.

This lens doesn’t doesn’t give me the amazing selective focus capability of a very fast prime lens like my 85mm f/1.4, since its maximum aperture is a modest f/3.5, and isn’t really quite sharp unless I stop it down to f/4.

I made this image of our neighbor Mike holding a turkey egg and a guinea egg from his birds using the 50-135mm f/3.5 at 50mm in its macro mode.

Some highlights…

It is a push-pull zoom, meaning you push the zoom/focus ring forward toward 50mm, and back toward 135mm. You turn the same ring to focus.
There is a macro setting; at 50mm, you can focus to two feet using an orange line on the focus scale. Calling it “macro” is stretch, since all the 50mm primes I own focus to 1.47 feet. Real macro lenses like my 60mm focus much, much closer.
It is well-built of brass and steel, common among lenses of that time, but quite rare today unless you are willing to pay for top-end lenses.
This lens was probably meant to be Nikon’s “real” offering to compete with their more consumer-focused 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E lens.
It is sharp, though it exhibits some of the usual pre-computer-designed aberrations like vignetting and color fringing, but those are easy to dial out while editing.
In early shooting, I found myself mostly starting at 135mm, but liking the fact that I could zoom a bit.

The orange line on the focusing scale indicates the portion of the focus range only covered at the 50mm setting. The orange M indicates it is a "macro" setting, but it doesn't focus as close as a real macro lens. — The orange line on the focusing scale indicates the portion of the focus range only covered at the 50mm setting. The orange M indicates it is a “macro” setting, but it doesn’t focus as close as a real macro lens.

While getting this review together, I found other reviews online that, of course, employed the “brick wall, sturdy tripod, live-view focus” test, which, honestly, reveals nothing. When I review a lens, I shoot with it, in the real world, and I get a useful, real-world result.

This large, noisy tom turkey is fun to photograph. This image, made at f/4, shows the unimpressive background selective focus capability of the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5. Additionally, the "bokeh," or the character of the out-of-focus portions of this image, is a bit cluttered. — This large, noisy tom turkey is fun to photograph. This image, made at f/4, shows the unimpressive background selective focus capability of the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5. Additionally, the “bokeh,” or the character of the out-of-focus portions of this image, is a bit cluttered.

In conclusion, this $30 lens is fun to use and makes decent images, and I am very glad I bought it.

With its zoom ring set to 85mm, the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 is pictured with one of its contemporaries, the Nikkor 85mm f/2.0.

Moving Pictures

Another Lens for the Collection

2 Comments