Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,495   Posts: 1,543,022   Online: 800
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: 28/2 AI vs AIS

  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    18
    In my previous quote today, I also meant to say that I have the very late version of the 28 F2 AIS (601000). These have the Super Integrated Coating on the elements. Could be that is why the flare and ghosting is a bit more controlled.

  2. #22
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,967
    Images
    1
    Originally Posted by mohawk51
    If you shoot any landscape pictures you probably would want the F2, because the F2 keeps everything sharp from near to infinity. The F2.8 keep everything sharp from near to mid-distances. Believe me, I've seen the difference.
    And this part?
    -----------------------

    "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

  3. #23
    Lukas_87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic (Europe)
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    114
    Images
    2
    well, there are two types of f/2,8 28mm lens - those which can focus closer (to 0,2 m if I remember correctly) have CRC and are far superior in close focus range to the version focussing only to 0,3 m close.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    715
    In my experience, with 2 versions of the 28mm f/2 and one version of the 2.8 Ais, this is not the case. I'd have that 2.8 CRC checked out.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    And this part?
    I shoot for a couple of magazines and even the photo editors noticed the difference between the F2.8 and the F2 28mm lenses. Crystal sharp from near to infinity on the F2. Can't explain it except to maybe think that the F2.8 might have been designed for just near-mid distances only. Bjorn Rorslett seemed to agree.

  6. #26
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,967
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk51 View Post
    I shoot for a couple of magazines and even the photo editors noticed the difference between the F2.8 and the F2 28mm lenses. Crystal sharp from near to infinity on the F2. Can't explain it except to maybe think that the F2.8 might have been designed for just near-mid distances only. Bjorn Rorslett seemed to agree.
    Yup, got it. Did not understand the way you first put it but now do. Thanks.
    -----------------------

    "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

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Europa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk51 View Post
    ... Cristal sharp from near to infinity on the F2....
    But awful corners up to 5.6-8.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    "Construction-wise, AIS lenses are usually smaller and lighter than their predecessors. In other words, costing cutting was coming home to Nikon. Most AIS lenses show cheapened construction. The typical five screws for the bayonet mount was reduced in most cases to only three. The traditional chrome ring on Nikon lenses between the focus ring and the aperture ring was replaced by aluminum.
    All the "chrome" rings in Nikkors are bare aluminium... also materials are cheap as **** starting from first F lenses in 1959 till Nikon switched from metal to plastic in 80's. You can only dream of seeing brass helicoids in Nikkors...

    At least in pre-Ais lenses Nikon also used crappy low quality helical greases unlike some quality brands like Pentax or Tamron, whose lenses are still silky smooth while all old Nikkors are terrible if unserviced.

    The only difference beteen pre-ais and Ais lenses is unnceccessarilyy complicated ("fiddly") construction in earlier lenses. Servicing them is a tedious task compared to simpler Ais lenses.

    The amount of bayonet screws does not matter with lighter lenses, Nikon kept using 5 screws in heavier telephoto lenses where it mattered.

    I would look for other lens makers if I wanted high mechanical quality. Nikkors are tolerable (I own 11 manual focus Nikkors) because of the low prices and good selection of different lenses.
    Film is dead. | Flickr

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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