p.1 #2 · Why does this look so appealing? 135mm f/2 AI-S
Are we talking about the aesthetics of the lens, or the output?
Many vintage manual focus lenses are simply sublime aesthetically.
With regard to Nikon, I particularly like the design of the DC lenses, 135/2 DC and 105/2 DC.
The 135/2 Ai-s goes in the same aesthetic direction.
Reduced to the essentials, the very fast models typically have only a wisp of body/housing and otherwise just glass.
For me, with its touch of minimalism, such lenses are timelessly beautiful and aesthetically far superior to the majority of modern AF lenses.
Comparatively slim and graceful, these lenses also convey an immense robustness in their mechanics, feel, and material appearance, a quality feeling rarely found today.
p.1 #6 · Why does this look so appealing? 135mm f/2 AI-S
Vento wrote:
Are we talking about the aesthetics of the lens, or the output?
Many vintage manual focus lenses are simply sublime aesthetically.
With regard to Nikon, I particularly like the design of the DC lenses, 135/2 DC and 105/2 DC.
The 135/2 Ai-s goes in the same aesthetic direction.
Reduced to the essentials, the very fast models typically have only a wisp of body/housing and otherwise just glass.
For me, with its touch of minimalism, such lenses are timelessly beautiful and aesthetically far superior to the majority of modern AF lenses.
Comparatively slim and graceful, these lenses also convey an immense robustness in their mechanics, feel, and material appearance, a quality feeling rarely found today. ...Show more →
I think asthetics. I haven't seen how these render but apparently, its quite nice
p.1 #7 · Why does this look so appealing? 135mm f/2 AI-S
Okay, now I see the pictures.
I was a bit confused, especially since, like others apparently, I didn't see any squares and couldn't make sense of the comment.
Yes, aesthetically it's a very beautiful lens, to which the large front element certainly contributes.
At least back then it came with a leather pouch; today even with a 3k lens, a black cloth pouch/cleaning rag has to suffice.
p.1 #9 · Why does this look so appealing? 135mm f/2 AI-S
I've owned 2 copies of this lens; one a K, one a later AiS. Same optic in all versions. Cosmetically, it's a beautiful piece of industrial design IMO. If you shoot a lot of people/faces, it's still a reasonable choice. Resolution-wise, my impression (no formal comparison tests done on tripod) is that it barely had enough resolution on a D3 (12MP) and came up somewhat short on the D800 (36MP). It's sharpest at infinity and the sharpness declines nicely at portrait distances due to unit focusing of the Ernostar optical design (there's a 1001 Nights article on it). Very nice bokeh but with the axial CA one expects. When I got the Zeiss ZF.2 135mm/2 Apo Sonnar, it had to go...I'm not running a Nikon lens museum, after all. I still miss the excellent ergos, and particularly miss the compact length when I take the Apo Sonnar out.
p.1 #10 · Why does this look so appealing? 135mm f/2 AI-S
Yeah, something about the aesthetics of the ones like the 135/2 and 15/5.6 that widen out abruptly *before* the focusing ring (ones that angle out at the nose, less steeply, like the 15/3.5 or Contax/Zeiss 21 Distagons, don't have the same vibe).
p.1 #11 · Why does this look so appealing? 135mm f/2 AI-S
Old Nikkors like that did not have AF motors and electronics, so of course they could be slimmer. Back in the day I did not care about what lenses looked like, but the photos they made. I do miss the built-in lens hoods which were quite convenient except for polarizers. I never owned that lens, just the similar 105, which was smaller.
p.1 #12 · Why does this look so appealing? 135mm f/2 AI-S
I dont get that comment about polarizers; with a builtin lenshood you can move that back quickly to change the polarizer, then move the lenshood back in place.
the 135 looks like every other Ai-S lens of it's generation, just with a bigger mouth.
