A 28 for a Nikon F3

Jerevan

Jerevan

Recycled User
Local time
7:15 PM
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
1,118
Location
Germany
View My Gallery
I am on the lookout for a 28 for an F3. I used to have an 28/2.8 AI that I liked but it was ten years ago, and I know people disparage this particular lens in favour of the AIS version.

Putting price aside I am considering four options in no particular order:

1. Nikon 28/2.8 AIS
2. Color Skopar 28/2.8 SL II
3. Zeiss ZF2 28/2.0
4. Nikon 28/2

I am going to make photographs in daylight, I like getting close to etablish near-far relations in the scene, I've always liked architecture, so straight lines is a good thing but I guess I can live without it. It will be the one and only lens for this camera.

Would any of the newer offerings bring anything worthwhile to the table compared to the 28/2.8 AIS? I am obviously going to do film, with black&white being the main thing.
 
Look no further than the 28 AIS 2.8. Straight lines, sharp wide open and just use it at 2.8, f4. F5.6 and at a push f8. I used extensively on my F3 and now on my F6.
 
The Nikon 28/2 (AI or AI-S) is an excellent lens. It outshines the highly revered 28/2.8 AI-S in the corners at all apertures and doesn't have as much distortion. It's also very flare resistant and has plenty of contrast. I ultimately let mine go for a 28/1.8 AF-S because I struggle to focus wide lenses on SLR's... otherwise I never would have swapped.

Prior to introduction of the AF-S lens, iIt wasn't the most expensive non-PC Nikon 28mm lens behind the f/1.4 aspherical lens without good reason.
 
The famous 28/2.8 AI-S is interesting if you really need to focus as close as what it offers.

But this left aside, I have found that the 28/2.8 AI is every bit as sharp with no more distortion or vignetting, and better built. The 28/2.8 AI-S is so-so as for its innards mechanics (polycarbonate barrel, CRC unit made of cheap white metal) and as a result most of them suffer from wobble and play to a point which may cause blurry images because the body aperture preselection fork will make the wobbly lens optical unit vibrate when the shutter is triggered (too bad given what the lens offers optically wise). If you get one with some internal wobble and play (very fairly common), have it serviced prior using it so that it comes back tight all around with a firm focusing action and no rattling noise when you gently shake it.

The 28/2 is excellent indeed but it's larger and heavier. Favor the AI version over the Ai-S one (same optics with the CRC unit, better built).
 
I'll second the recommendation for the 28/2.8 AI-S based on its close-focus capability. I use one with my F3 and it's a great combination.

However, the Zeiss 28mm f/2 ZF.2 is really lovely. I had it on loan for a short time and really fell in love with it. Images pop in a way that I've not gotten with the Nikkor (granted, I haven't used the Nikkor as much as I'd like to have). I only paid around $125 for my 28/2.8 AI-S, but if money wasn't an object I'd go with the Zeiss.
 
I'll add another vote for the 28mm f/2.8 AIS.
Contrary to a previous post, it is the most highly corrected wide angle lens Nikon made with respect to distortion aside from the PC Nikkors. The corners aren't a strong part at wide apertures but closed down to f/5.6 the lens is stunning. The 28/2 Nikkor has almost the same corner softness up to f/4 as the f/2.8 version then from f/5.6-f/8 the f/2.8 lens wipes the floor with the faster one, in my opinion. The faster lens has more barrel distortion and field curvature. The f/2.8 lens gives images as close to a symmetric non-rectilinear wide for a rangefinder as you'll ever find for an SLR. It is almost as distortion-free as a 21mm f/3.4 Super Angulon. The corners have fall-off in illumination and sharpness at wider apertures but so do all spherical designs. The 28mm f/1.4 is better illuminated in the corners but not nearly as flat in the focus plane as it is a PJ lens and a true aspheric. Made for flatter illumination but not geometric straightness.

For your uses, close in with straight lines and architecture being an interest, the f/2.8 AIS Nikkor should be the ticket.

Phil Forrest
 
huddy said:
The Nikon 28/2 (AI or AI-S) is an excellent lens. It outshines the highly revered 28/2.8 AI-S in the corners at all apertures and doesn't have as much distortion. It's also very flare resistant and has plenty of contrast. I ultimately let mine go for a 28/1.8 AF-S because I struggle to focus wide lenses on SLR's... otherwise I never would have swapped.

Prior to introduction of the AF-S lens, iIt wasn't the most expensive non-PC Nikon 28mm lens behind the f/1.4 aspherical lens without good reason.
Click to expand...

I picked one up- no regrets (minus that I'm terrible at focusing wides on an SLR)
 
Nikon 28f2.8 Ais

You can't see at this posted resolution, but the individual fibers that make up the treads are resolved.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    50.2 KB · Views: 0
Good to hear all your suggestions!

Thinking about it a bit more, I remember having the feeling of actually getting too close to things even with the 0.3 limit of the AI. And big size is not an issue, since I am going to run it on with the F3/MD4 combo.

A too small lens could be a bit annoying which is one of the reasons I am not hundred percent sure of the Color-Skopar in this case. And the Zeiss ... well, putting a €950 lens on a €95 body may seem a bit extravagant. 🙂
 
The 28mm ais is great, but if you want straight lines in your architecture then I vote for the 28mm f3.5 PC. This is a great lens.
 
I'm not an architecture photographer, so the non-straight lines aren't really an issue for me.

I just love the way the Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS lens renders on film. Here on an F2 with Tri-X.

28sun16.jpg


This was shot with the camera about 10 inches off the ground, pointing upward, so the non-straight lines are exaggerated.

Best,
-Tim
 
The 28/2.8 AIS is really overrated. For the same price the 28mm f/2 AI or AIS is better in pretty much every respect at identical apertures. I have both, I've tested this, and my findings agree with pretty much every lens tester out there.

The 28/2.8 AIS simply isn't that great at infinity and especially not that great in the corners.

Not sure where tales of the mythic properties of this lens came from. That said, it is definitely extremely light and compact, so it's a good lens for those looking to keep things really light for backpacking.
 
Timmyjoe said:
I'm not an architecture photographer, so the non-straight lines aren't really an issue for me.

I just love the way the Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS lens renders on film. Here on an F2 with Tri-X.

28sun16.jpg


This was shot with the camera about 10 inches off the ground, pointing upward, so the non-straight lines are exaggerated.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Very nice pic.

Actually your "non-straight lines" are... perfectly straight. They are of course not vertical, which would be impossible as per the laws of optics, even for the human eye (Leonardo da Vinci wouldn't deny this).

Now if they were curves, the lens would definitely have a problem. But they're not.

😉
 
fwiw, I have both the 28 2.8 and the 28 2.0.

The 2.8 is excellent at close to mid distances. The 2.0 is much better at long to infinity. If you do candid type close up stuff, the 2.8 is a very good choice. For calculated landscape type stuff, the 2.0 is the better option.

All lenses have certain characteristics under certain conditions. And film plane to subject distance is one of those conditions that seems to get overlooked sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
Richard G
Compose within 50mm framelines, anticipate outside them, or just grab a 28?
Replies
13
Views
533
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
wrs1145
A Canon LTM 25 or a Canon LTM 28?
Replies
14
Views
3K
raid
raid
skahde
Nikon F3: Which generation screens to pick.
Replies
1
Views
1K
skahde
skahde
willie_901
Request For Advice; SONY alpha7C to M-42 Lens Adapter
Replies
6
Views
651
AlwaysOnAuto
AlwaysOnAuto
Back
Top Bottom