28/2 AI vs AIS

[mohawk51]

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.

[rich815]

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?

[Lukas_87]

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.

[RidingWaves]

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.

[mohawk51]

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.

[rich815]

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.

[vlasta]

... Cristal sharp from near to infinity on the F2....

But awful corners up to 5.6-8.

[Ihmemies]

"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.