I currently have a Nikon 70-210 f4 AF as my telephoto zoom, but am considering a mid range 35-135 AFN to possibly replace it because of it's wider use applications, and the fact that I find myself not needing the extra stretch. Since very little has been written about the pros or cons of this lens, I am interested in hearing from those who have used, or still use, this lens. I'm happy with the results of my f4. How might the 35-135 compare? Thanks in advance for any 'wi

-- Bob Thommes (bthommes@sutton.esu9.k12.ne.us), July 06, 1999

Answers

I replaced the 35-135 with a 50, a 28, an 85, and my feet. It was flare prone in situations I wouldn't normally have expected, and low-contrast to the point that the negs from the 85 looked better right off the reel. I don't think I actually remounted it after the comparison.

My sample of the 35-135 might be a loser, of course. My father's 35-105 is slightly better, and Nikon's 35-xxx zooms have a reputation for large sample-to-sample variances. And if you're shooting C-41 color then you might be fine anyway, as I've always noticed more difference between lenses in B&W than in color prints.

-- John O'Connell (oconnell@siam.org), July 07, 1999.

very simple answer, the 24-120 is definitely much better, both in quality and versality, but you loose the telephoto range, i.e. the 75-300 might be the replacement you are looking for.

-- siegfried boes (boes@first.gmd.de), July 07, 1999.

Hi Bob, the 35-105mm is much better than the 35-135mm. If you must have 135mm, try to get an old MF 50-135 f3,5. An amazing lens. Good luck, Ralf.

-- Ralf Grambrock (101.51955@germanynet.de), October 12, 1999.

My 35-135 is a great lens. I'm very happy with it. It's very sharp. Contrast is good if not quite to the standards of a prime lens. I always use the proper Nikon hood with it, though.

-- Jim MacKenzie (photojim@yahoo.com), October 22, 1999.