Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,944   Posts: 1,585,782   Online: 1042
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Vilk View Post
    hmmm... so which of the two pix is "much worse" again?
    the one with virtually no contrast, and extreme softness everywhere except the dead centre of the frame, and what looks like flare all around the edges of the negative.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Why do you expect it to be better? I have the 3.5, and it's a superb lens - the biggest issue is slightly dark corners wide open, which disappear by 5.6 or so.
    The main reasons to use the f:2 version are (of course) the maximum aperture and it's attendant shallow dof, and the close range correction. High speed films have improved greatly, so fast lenses aren't as neccesary as they once were. The other aspects may be important to you though.
    As a sort of parallel, I once had the 35/2.8 and the 35/2, both pre-ai. I kept the f:2 because it had more even illumination.
    well I really wanted the extra stop and a half of lens speed, and thought the CRC would make for better performance throughout the whole focusing range. I am now considering going a cheaper route and getting a 35/2 for low light situations and holding on to the 28/3.5.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by nwilkins View Post
    well I really wanted the extra stop and a half of lens speed, and thought the CRC would make for better performance throughout the whole focusing range. I am now considering going a cheaper route and getting a 35/2 for low light situations and holding on to the 28/3.5.
    It doesn't. Actually it doesn't make a huge differenc closeup, either, at least not on the subjects I use a 28 on (I tried one before I settled on the 3.5 version - not to mention the price difference - the 28 is about the nicest $40 lens I've ever seen ).
    I have a 35/2 Nikkor O that I am very happy with, I don't think you'll be dissapointed with that lens.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    305
    thanks E. Another thing I noticed is that the distance scale markings on the AIS 28/2 were much harder to use than on my 28/3.5 (which is a pre-AI K series). I assume this is due to a change in focusing throw? Do all AIS lenses have shorter throw (and therefore less useful lens barrel markings)?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by nwilkins View Post
    thanks E. Another thing I noticed is that the distance scale markings on the AIS 28/2 were much harder to use than on my 28/3.5 (which is a pre-AI K series). I assume this is due to a change in focusing throw? Do all AIS lenses have shorter throw (and therefore less useful lens barrel markings)?
    I don't really know. Perhaps, because the f:2 focusses closer than the 3.5, more markings are crammed into the same space? I never had the two at one time to compare; besides I rarely look at the scales. Your "K" version - I think yours has a rubber insert on the focussing ring - should be basically the same as mine, a pre-ai with factory ai conversion.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    720
    E., the 28mm 3.5 was recalculated when it went to Ai-s.
    Something seems wrong, both my 28mm f/2 don't look like this wide open. It does have front CRC like the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-s (which is an excellent refinement of the f/2 design BTW) and wide open you will see a bit of field curvature so make very sure what you have in focus is what you want, its not Flat Field and the later 3.5 is much better in this regards (and I think you're seeing some of this). Try the test again with more focus bracketing with f/2 you really have to nail the focus even if its a broad/landscape type shot. IMO the f/2 lens strength is mid to close distances (1-2.5 meters) when its wide open or close to it in low light.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by RidingWaves View Post
    E., the 28mm 3.5 was recalculated when it went to Ai-s.
    Something seems wrong, both my 28mm f/2 don't look like this wide open. It does have front CRC like the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-s (which is an excellent refinement of the f/2 design BTW) and wide open you will see a bit of field curvature so make very sure what you have in focus is what you want, its not Flat Field and the later 3.5 is much better in this regards (and I think you're seeing some of this). Try the test again with more focus bracketing with f/2 you really have to nail the focus even if its a broad/landscape type shot. IMO the f/2 lens strength is mid to close distances (1-2.5 meters) when its wide open or close to it in low light.
    Right, that's what I thought. Mine is a converted pre-ai, the Op's is a 'K', so both are pre-ai-s and should behave similarly.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    305
    thanks RidingWaves - I am pretty positive something was drastically wrong with the lens or else it would not have such a stellar reputation. FWIW I did extensive testing with all different focus distances and apertures and the thing was awful wide open and only rivalled the 3.5 after F8, as I said. In any case I am glad I returned it!

  9. #19
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,848
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dynachrome View Post
    I have two 28/3.5 AI Nikkors. They are both very sharp. The 28/3.8 AIS is supposed to be better in the close-up range. If I need to be in the close-up range and I do not need the 28mm focal length I just use a 55/2.8 AIS. All of the 28/2 Nikkors are supposed to be very good so yours may not have been in good condition.
    you picked a good real-world representation for your sample image test.th3.5 seems obviously better. Ithink, what you see is whar you'll get.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    720
    The front CRC is not too complex but its very much possible that it was cleaned and reassembled incorrectly. If you really don't need the extra stop the f/2.8 Ai-s is truly stellar, and I'll never not use my old Non-Ai 28mm f/3.5, it just has 'a look'. I like 28's!!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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