Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3  Pyramid OSx-3.0 85/11/15; site pyramid.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!dougw
From: dougw@pyramid.UUCP (Doug Wong)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Buying a 35 mm camera
Message-ID: <159@pyramid.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 18:56:50 EST
Article-I.D.: pyramid.159
Posted: Wed Mar 12 18:56:50 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 07:33:39 EST
References: <9540@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2578@genat.UUCP>
Reply-To: dougw@pyramid.UUCP (Doug Wong)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 58
Keywords: 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom.

In article <2578@genat.UUCP> jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) writes:
>In article <9540@ucla-cs.ARPA> art@ucla-cs.UUCP writes:
>>the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom.
>>
>>Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts?
>
>I used to own a 35-105 zoom Nikkor f3.5-4.5. My experience with this lens
>is:
>
>- it may be OK for portraits if you want to include a little more than
>just head and shoulders. The lens only focuses down to 1.4m (4.6ft). You
>can turn the macro ring slightly and focus closer but the image quality
>deteriorates apreciably.

With a 35-105 zoom, you can include the whole person if you wanted to!
Besides 4.6ft is awful close for taking portraits 8-). The macro
feature of any lens is not guranteed to work if only "enabled partially".

>- it is NOT a very sharp lens especially at large apertures which is OK
>in the case of portraits but don't try to compare the image quality with
>that of your 135mm which by the way would be my choice for portraits
>together with your F model Nikon. 

I used my Nikon 35-105 zoom heavily in shooting slides for a multi-media
show using two projectors, where precise focus and sharpness is a must
(unless you want to make people squint 8-) ). I have never seen this
defect with slides produced by others using this lens (I know of two
others who used this lens). Fixed focal length vs. zoom lens sharpness
is, I believe at this current date and time, a matter of debate.

>- the 35-105mm is subject to FLARE so always use a hood and small
>apertures (otherwise it degrades the image quality badly) and watch out
>for backlighted shots. I suspect you will see many of the same problems
>with the 35-135mm.

I have never experienced this problem in the multitude of shots I've
taken with this lens (BTW I always use a lens hood).

>- if you must have a zoom, consider spending a the extra money for the
>more expensive 35-70 f3.5 (not the f3.3 to 4.5). I have been told it is
>the way to go in Nikon zooms although I have not tried one.

I believe this is a Series E lens, in which case will not have the
automatic exposure feature of the AIS series lenses.

>- my experience with Vivitar is limited to an 80-200mm which optically
>was a very acceptable lens but mechanically no lens in this category will
>compare to a Nikkor (consider how long your other Nikon lenses have been
>around).

I agree (finally 8-) ).

I bought this lens for the flexibility offered by the focal lengths, and
because I wanted a good intermediate to wide angle lens. The focal lengths
are also the most handy for my applications (I hate carrying alot of
heavy glass 8-) ).

			Doug Wong