My Brief Encounter with AF-Zoom Nikkor 35- 105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF

I came across this lens as a "50%-off" sale at a Lechmere store, and paid $301 for it (normal price is $350 for the gray market version). Tested out during a snowstorm, and decided to return it.

This is one of highly praised Nikkor zooms, for its convenient range, sharpness and low distortion. It focuses reasonably close to 0.85m (less than 3 ft) at all focal lengths. (I've seen the mentioning of 35-105 Micro Zoom, but this lens does not have the "micro" mode or button). The following are the specifications:

Focal length: 35mm to 105mm
Maximum aperture: f/3.5 at 35mm, f/3.9 at 50mm, f/4.3 at 70mm and f/4.5 at 105mm
Lens construction: 13 elements in 10 groups
Picture angle: 62 degrees to 23 degrees and 20 minutes
Marked focal length scale: 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, and 105mm
Minimum focusing distance: 0.85m (less than 3ft).
Minimum aperture: f/22 marked (for 35mm)
Weight: 410g (14oz)
Dimension: 68.5mm dia x 72.5mm
Attachment size: 52mm
Hood: HB-5
Teleconverter: TC-14A, TC-201.

It contains one aspherical element (Nikon literature does not mention this, but PopPhoto's annual zoom comparison indicated). It is an IF lens; that is, the front element does not rotate while zooming or focusing. The lens only changes its length when zoomed. The focusing ring's traveling angle is too small (about 45 degrees to focus from 85cm to infinity) for manual focusing, although the feel is pretty good. The 52mm filter size is also a plus.

In general, I found that the sharpness, the contrast and the color balance of the lens are all excellent. The former two factors are quite comparable (subtly inferior) to those of a 24mm f/2.8 AF-D prime with a Tiffen multi-coated 81A filter I shot side-by-side for comparison. (The 35-105 is shot naked, without any hood or filter.) The latter is typical Nikkor.

However, during my testing, I found the following problems with the sample:

Severe light fall-off at large apertures at all focal length. It completely disappears at f/11 or smaller. This is the fatal flaw for the lens to be acceptable (for me). The light fall-off appears at the sides of the frame and could be 3-4mm into the frame in each side. It does not appear at the top and the bottom (for a horizontally hold camera). The amount of fall-off is about 1/2 stop for aperture at 35mm f/5.6. (Actually the same amount, the size and the darkness, of fall-off for all focal lengths, but 35mm is where the marked aperture is also the effective aperture.)
The picture to the right is taken with this lens set at 35mm and shows the light fall-off. The scene is an early morning snow scene (around 6:30, and it was snowing) , so the lighting is extremely even. The exposure is f5.6 at about 1/20" (matrix metering aperture-priority auto-exposure with +1.3 stop compensation). The film is Fujichrome Sensia. The image is scanned full-frame from a mounted slide, scanned by a Polaroid SprintScan 35 slide/negative scanner. (The yellow strip at the left edge is due to scanning.) Note that the scanning and the electronic processing of the image has increases the contrast of the scene a little bit, thus enhances the light fall-off effect slightly. But I think this is not what I'd expect from a $350 SLOW lens.
Some color infringement (chromatic aberration?) at corners for out-of-focus objects. In most cases, this is not significant. But for an object that is close to the camera and out of focus, and its image is located in the far corner of the frame, the color infringement on the slide could be observable even by naked eyes if I looked hard enough.
The picture to the right shows another full-frame scanned image of MIT's main building taken with the lens. Two shots were taken at 35mm and at f/5.6 and f/11, respectively, but an equivalent (auto-) exposure. The far upper-right corners of both slides are scanned at 1012 dpi. During the scanning, care was taken to insert the slide only halfway into the slot in the portrait orientation such that the horizontally protruding brunch is located about the position of the top of MIT Dome in the full-frame image above. (This is to attempt avoiding the degradation of performance of slide scanner at the corners.) Also, exactly the same software parameters were used in scanning. The raw (without any electronic retouching or sharpening, but cropped and rotated) scanned image are shown below; the left is taken at f/5.6 and the right is taken at f/11.

The images show that vertical edges of out-of-focus objects (not only the main trunk, but also other smaller brunches) have very severe color infringement, which is not as severe around horizontal edges. A smaller aperture improves the situation but does not eliminate it. Also note, the sky area in the f/5.6 image is darker than the f/11 image, due to light fall-off at large apertures. (The full-frame image is taken at f/5.6.)

Since Nikon has a new AF 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D in the market, which has been reviewed favorably by many people. Albeit almost 1 stop slower in the long end, I am setting my heart for this new jewel for now: I am through with Nikkor 35-105 zoom. My rational is: I expect a zoom to be somewhat soft, with noticeable distortions, etc, compared with a prime; but don't expect the problems such as the light fall-off in such a common focal lengths, and the color infringement. If all these are unavoidable compromises for a zoom, then why not get a real cover-all zoom which can get me through almost all party and travel situations?!

Thanks to Bryce Hashizume (brhashiz@acs.ucalgary.ca) for correcting an inaccuracy in my information about 24-120 lens.

Back to my Photo Gear page
Last updated: June 9, 1997.