Roundy-round I go, yet again, one more time, perhaps with a bit more feeling, and a bit more bravado.
I can't remember how many Nikkor 135mm lenses I've bought and sold over the years. Usually I'll pick something up for a project, finish the project, then sell the lens after it's sat in the Toy Closet for what I consider too long. Mainly as a source of funding for Yet Another Project.
Some time back there was Yet Another Project that came up and while I had some wonderful lenses at the time that might fit most of the purpose, there was a gap in my focal length lineup. Indeed, you probably could guess the missing focal length. That's right. 135mm.
Browsing the local on-line ads I contacted several people and considered several different lenses. Should I go really cheap and spend around 25Euro? Most of the lenses in this price class were either 3rd party (Vivitar, Soligor, etc) or had some kind of fault, like fungus or non-operable apertures. Or should I go a little higher end and spend over 100Euro? Zeiss and Nikon and Leitz were typically the ones people felt were made of gold and set their asking prices accordingly.
The items I could view depended on my search criteria. So I typically try all manner of combinations just to see what pops up. This is how I found a lens located just down the street from me for a nicely small-ish well less than 100Euro price.
Once home I checked the serial number of the lens to see when it was manufactured. I thought I was looking at a Nikon Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 Ai. But this was wrong. It's actually a late model AiS version c.2003.
The focus systems changed between the Ai and AiS Nikkor series. The AiS lenses focus more quickly with shorter throws than the Ai. In this case I've read that the Ai 135mm is around 270degrees stop to stop, where the AiS is around 170degrees. My concern with the AiS was that focusing action would be too quick and that I could easily mis-focus. If that is the only downside, I'd have to learn to be careful with focusing during the project that I had in mind.
I'd also read various comments around the 'net where folks didn't like their 135mm Nikkors and preferred the 105mm f/2.5. Most of the comments were about how the 135mm was less sharp than the 105mm. Since I had both focal lengths I thought it might be interesting to find out how my optics compared.
To set a baseline I used a Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA (Zeiss) as a reference. Then I remembered that I have a Sigma 1.4x AF teleconverter and wondered how that might effect performance of the Nikkors. I figured I'd add the teleconverter to the comparison since I hauled it out of the Toy Box while scrounging for something else. The 105 and 135 are short enough in physical length that maybe I could use them in the field with a bit more reach that the Sigma 1.4x would provide.
Here's what I found. Remember to click on the following image and enlarge to 100% to see whatever there is to see.
Comments -
Well... well... well... Can I tell any meaningful difference between Zony 55mm and Nikkors? Nope.
Are there any differences between the Nikkors themselves? Nope.
I suppose, in terms of "sharpness" the Nikkors feel "fatter" in image rendition than the Zony, but how the heck do I measure something like that?
OK. Maybe the Nikkors are a 1/64th of a step behind the Zony. Maybe. But probably not. They're all equal. Really.
What about when I add a Sigma 1.4x AF teleconverter into the Nikkor mix? Contrast is lower and there's a slight loss of resolution in the center of the field. The corners look awful.
Just to check as much as I could check and to cross as many bridges as I could, I re-ran the comparison using the 135mm f/2.8 with the Sigma 1.4x, focusing first in the center of the field, taking a photo, then focusing at the outer edges, and taking another photo.
The results speak for themselves. The teleconverter appears to introduce field curvature. Since I can't measure how badly the field is curved, I'm not yet sure how it will impact image-making in the field. What I know is to avoid photographing flat subjects using this combination. But it might be just fine for photographing motorcycles at speed on a racetrack where the edges of the scene count for nothing but blur and color.
In the end I really can't tell much difference in terms of "sharpness" between the Zony and Nikkor lenses. I'm convinced that any differences would come down to my camera-craft and abilities to control my camera-work. Putting a stake in the heart of "sharpness" concerns and in the case of the two lenses I own the AiS 135mm f/2.8 is every bit the equal to the legendary 105mm Xenotar Nikkor.
