Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,701   Posts: 1,482,641   Online: 719
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    258

    nikkor lens evaluation

    Hi everyone,

    I have a Nikkor 28/3.5 which is a great little lens but I was hoping a 28/2 would be even better. I bought one used and it looked mint - no marks on the glass, little dust inside. However when used wide open at F2 the performance was terrible. I am attaching two photos of the lenses on a tripod wide open to show you how much worse the 28/2 was. Now I realize my old one wide open is F3.5 so it's not a true comparison, but there is something wrong with the 28/2, right?

    The 28/2 didn't seem to have these problems once stopped down to 5.6 or so, but it did not seem to be quite as good as the 28/3.5 until after F8. Stopped way down it looked better that the 3.5 but this was due to improved micro-contrast rather than better resolution.

    I returned the 28/2 but now I'm wondering if the image quality will be noticeably better than the 28/3.5 - it really is a nice little lens. Will I notice a big difference if I get a working 28/2 for real world use, or only if I shoot brick walls?

    Thanks!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 28-2.jpg   28-3.5.jpg  

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    769
    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.

  3. #3
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Did you adequately shade the 28/2 for this test?
    It will flare easily but it is no dog even wide open.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    258
    I shot the lens in all kinds of lighting conditions and it was the same story wide open. These two test shots both were taken with the sun behind the camera (partly sunny partly cloudy day), both on a tripod with cable release. Could someone have takenit apart at some point and put it back together wrong?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,533
    a trace of fogging can make a big difference and is difficult to detect but a few scratches are easy to detect but won't detract from performance. Having a lens cleaned is expensive sending back cheap.

    If you don't need /2 stick with /2.8 or /3.5.

    My /3.5 needs lots a work but don't feel the need for an upgrade may strip it if I get snowed in.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    266
    Hello,
    the 1:2,0/28 is a rather old design and you cannot expect more from such this wide opened lens fully open. A 1:2,8/35 however is a well proven design which is much easier to correct. Take the 1:2,8/28 AiS with floating elements (not Ai!) this is one of the best 28 mm lenses on the market.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    258
    Hey Jochen I am not sure I agree with you there - the 28/2 also has floating elements/CRC. FWIW this was an AIS version of the lens.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by nwilkins View Post
    Hi everyone,

    I have a Nikkor 28/3.5 which is a great little lens but I was hoping a 28/2 would be even better. I bought one used and it looked mint - no marks on the glass, little dust inside. However when used wide open at F2 the performance was terrible. I am attaching two photos of the lenses on a tripod wide open to show you how much worse the 28/2 was. Now I realize my old one wide open is F3.5 so it's not a true comparison, but there is something wrong with the 28/2, right?

    The 28/2 didn't seem to have these problems once stopped down to 5.6 or so, but it did not seem to be quite as good as the 28/3.5 until after F8. Stopped way down it looked better that the 3.5 but this was due to improved micro-contrast rather than better resolution.

    I returned the 28/2 but now I'm wondering if the image quality will be noticeably better than the 28/3.5 - it really is a nice little lens. Will I notice a big difference if I get a working 28/2 for real world use, or only if I shoot brick walls?

    Thanks!
    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by jochen View Post
    Hello,
    the 1:2,0/28 is a rather old design and you cannot expect more from such this wide opened lens fully open. A 1:2,8/35 however is a well proven design which is much easier to correct. Take the 1:2,8/28 AiS with floating elements (not Ai!) this is one of the best 28 mm lenses on the market.
    The 28/3.5 dates from 1959, it was one of the original lineup for the F.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by nwilkins View Post
    ...to show you how much worse the 28/2 was.
    hmmm... so which of the two pix is "much worse" again?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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