Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,491   Posts: 1,542,961   Online: 908
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    105

    please very urgent:Nikon 28 f2.8 or Nikon 28 f3.5

    Hi guys!I've to choose between these two Nikon lenses...

    28mm f 2.8 or 3.5...tomorrow I've to give the answer to the seller if I really want one of these glasses.
    It's not an important element to me the brigtness of the lens.If the 3,5 is better than the 2.8 I'll buy it!...I'm waiting for opinions and advices from you please!Don't let me alone in this choise please!
    Thanks.Regards

  2. #2
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    There are several versions of the f/2.8. The newer manual focus versions are better than the older ones. The autofocus ones are slightly inferior, but the D is very good nonetheless.

    The f/3.5s are good - the AI especially - but, of course, 2/3 stop slower.

    Personally I'd take a good, clean f/2.8 over an f/3.5, assuming the same pricing, but if the f/3.5 is sufficiently cheaper it would certainly do the job.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  3. #3
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,369
    Images
    60
    Don't forget that, even if you don't often shoot photos using the lens' maximum aperture, you will almost always be using the maximum aperture to compose and focus.

    It can be harder to focus a 28mm lens - you might find that you would really appreciate the extra 2/3 of a stop of viewfinder brightness and narrower depth of field that the f/2.8 lens offers.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,920
    If I'm not mistaken you are talking about lenses that are good 30+ year old. If I remember correctly, back then, Nikon did not make consumer grade lenses and professional grade lenses. They made LENSES - just one grade, pretty much. So everything else being equal, f/2.8 would be a better lens.

    But.... are they really in equally good condition? What are the price differences? Being a wide lens, focusing isn't all that critical. Plus, you are going to use this lens on a film camera, so you won't be doing crazy things like viewing the image at a ridiculous magnification and stress over sharpness....

    If I were in your place, I'd get the f/2.8 if the price premium is small and it is in good shape. Otherwise, I'd get f/3.5 and be happy.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,390
    Peter, the late Geoffrey Crawley wrote a book on the Nikon system in which he made the point that faster Nikkors of a focal length were better than slower Nikkors of the same focal length. He saw the f/3.5ers as consistently worse at all apertures than the equivalent f/2.8ers. If money's not a problem, get the 28/2.8.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by henry finley View Post
    That's odd. It goes against widely excepted belief that the slower, the sharper.
    I think it's a vast simplification- it (faster Nikkor is better) might be mostly true in this case, but not always; Nikon has made so many lenses, there is always a counter-example: lets say it's a 28 f3.5 Ai & a 28 f2.8 series E. It's a vast system, which is both a blessing and a curse, even an expert can get confused about some Nikon lens or another.

  7. #7
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,967
    Images
    1

    please very urgent:Nikon 28 f2.8 or Nikon 28 f3.5

    Here's some great info that should help:

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...kkor/index.htm
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #8
    Aristotle80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Baton Rouge and New Orleans
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    58
    Images
    3
    They are probably both great lenses. I've shot a number of old Nikkors in the fast and slow version, and they were all great. At the same price take the faster one. I wouldn't pay a huge premium for the faster one, but a little one would be fine. Can't lose either way.
    I confess I'm a gear nut within my price range. ;)
    Nikon FM2n, FG, FG20, N2000, Nikkormat, Olympus Stylus Epic
    Minox 35EL, Voigtlander Bessa-L
    Yashica-D TLR 6x6, Seagull TLR 6x6
    Agfa Isolette 6x6, Welmy 6x6
    Kodak Tourist 6x9 Anaston lens
    http://www.wendelstout.com/

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by henry finley View Post
    That's odd. It goes against widely excepted belief that the slower, the sharper.
    The f/2.8 has floating element(s), my Nikon lens booklet does not mention the f/3.5 having it.

    To the OP: There's a lot that goes in to your equation: Film, typical use scenario, cost. If you shoot Tri-X or don't enlarge very big then it probably doesn't matter. If the f/2.8 is an AiS version (orange painted minimum f-stop) and you can swallow the price get it; it is better all around than the f/3.5. Otherwise the f/3.5 will be fine. Any signs of damage on either? Why the rush?

    You pays your money and you takes your chances. Good luck.

    s-a
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,205
    The difference on your print may only be visible at massive enlargements or if you are in the habit of taking a magnifying glass to your work.

    Perhaps 3.5 means a smaller and lighter lens - that would sway me more than quality issues on, say, murals or pixel attributes.
    Steve.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin