Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,524   Posts: 1,572,338   Online: 973
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    292
    yes if anything I think this episode has confirmed that I will just keep using the 28/3.5 for wideangle (maybe one day I'll get a 24/2.8) and I will go for a 35/2 in case I need something in low light - a 35 shouldn't be too bad at F2 in terms of depth of field. Certainly more useable than my 50 at F1.4.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4
    That 28/2 doesn't look right. Should be sharper and more contrasty even wide open. The 28/3.5 looks good. I have an Ai version of this lens and it's a great little lens and very affordable.
    If you have time, please check out my photoblog monkeybrainsushi.wordpress.com

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Europa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    51
    Hello nwilkins,

    I had tried one 28/2, well on digital FF body (D700), and it was awful in corners till 5.6. In center it was better than 28/2.8 AiS fully open, but overall for landscapes it was unacceptable.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    I own a 28mm 2.8 AI lens and it's excellent. Also have a 35mm f2 AI and it's also of a high standard even wide open. I wonder at the reason you purchased a 28mm f2 lens?....These kind of fast wide angle lenses were designed primarily for available light hand held photography. If most of your photography is daylight camera on tripod stuff, you'd be better off with the 3.5 version.
    Finally some of us believe those early Nikon lenses made for the "F" etc., were made to a higher standard than the later AIs range. I believe production was shifted outside of Japan by then. Possibly "building down to a price" had entered the equation by then, replacing the previous maxim of excellence at all costs to combat the German Leicas?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    292
    Hi Rolleiman,

    I was indeed looking for a 28/2 for available light handheld stuff. If I'm using a tripod I'm not going to be shooting 35mm.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Yebisu View Post
    That 28/2 doesn't look right. Should be sharper and more contrasty even wide open. The 28/3.5 looks good. I have an Ai version of this lens and it's a great little lens and very affordable.
    Agree. Haze can be surprisingly hard to spot, especially in some W.A. types; it takes a dim room and a point source of light. Haze on even just one surface can really ruin the contrast of a lens.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    716
    to me it seems like it is the CRC or one group needs to be tightened. Inside these older Nikkor W.A there are scribe marks showing the alignment of the element or group retaining rings, which is basically how much to tighten or torque the retaining ring down. I can assure you it is possible to improve or degrade the performance of the lens by missing or hitting that original scribe mark.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,580
    Quote Originally Posted by RidingWaves View Post
    to me it seems like it is the CRC or one group needs to be tightened. Inside these older Nikkor W.A there are scribe marks showing the alignment of the element or group retaining rings, which is basically how much to tighten or torque the retaining ring down. I can assure you it is possible to improve or degrade the performance of the lens by missing or hitting that original scribe mark.
    It could be the CRC mechanism, but I'd check for haze first before taking it apart. You'd be surprised how many lenses of "a certain age" have it, and how a seemingly tiny bit can degrade performance.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    716
    yes I agree; some of those 28/2 elements are much smaller than you would think and even a tiny bit of haze can wreck.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    833
    After looking at the photosynthesis website it does not seem that the 28/3.5 Nikkor was recomputed with the AIS. It has the same number of elements and about the same dimensions. The only real changes were the focus throw and possibly the spacing between the aperture click stops. The 28/2.8 was recomputed when it went to AIS and had 8 elements and CRC.

Page 3 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