Nikkor 28mm, which one?

sanmich

sanmich

Veteran
Local time
2:41 AM
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
3,420
Hi gentlemen

Just wanted to ask what Nikkor 28mm MF a discerning RFFer have to use ...;)

f/2?
f/2.8?
f/3.5?

Thanks!
 
I think the 28mm f/2.8 AI/AIS lens has a great reputation. I haven't had a chance to use one myself so thats just word of mouth.
 
I can only attest to the 28/2.8 AIS since it's the only Nikkor 28 I have. It is a dandy and worthy of all the acclaim it has garnered. I had a pleasant surprise one day I went over to Jack London Square in Oakland one day and it was so dismal and gray that I was sure my results would be a "no keeper day". On the contrary, of the 24 shots 11 or 12 were solid "keepers". It draws light so well and I can focus down to about 8 inches! Due to the CRC and floating element.
 
Last edited:
I have the 28/2 Nikkor NC. It is very sharp, even wide-open. Much better than my Konica 28/1.8.
 
I have the 28mm 3.5 Ai...
It's not my first choice for wide angles...I'll grab the 35 or 24 before the 28...
 
You should read Bjorn Rorslett on these two lenses (AiS 28/2 and AiS 28/2.8. The 2.0 is sharper over a greater distance. The 28/2.8 is more beautiful at macro-like distances than any lens I've ever used. Nevertheless I got a hold of one of the rare 2.0s (which is also a CRC and focuses down to .25m, as opposed to the amazing .2m of the 2.8 AiS) and so I sold my 2.8 to finance it. It's a fabulous lens, unbelievably sharp, beautiful color rendition. The 2.8 is a bit less sharp at length, but is still one of the sharpest 28mm's you'll ever use. So you'll do fine with either and be very happy. I was.


As noted above, pay close attention to the 2.8 that you get the AiS version, which will be above a certain serial number and have the orange "22" on BOTH aperture rings, the one you set with and the little one below the rim that you see in the viewfinder of certain Nikons. A lot of sellers put AiS when it isn't an AiS lens.

Here are urls for Rorslett's amazing site and for the the best Nikon SN site:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
(scroll down for lens reviews)

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
 
I have a 3.5 AI which I don't use as often as I should. They are well built and dirt cheap!

Nikkor2835.jpg
 
Last edited:
I really like my 28/3.5 Nikkor-H non-AI lens. It's compact & fast enough enough for me to be one of the two lenses I keep in my daily carry bag (with my Nikkor-P 105/2.5 as the other - my 50/1.4 is on the camera.)
 
I have the 28/2.8 AIs and it ROCKS. I hear good stuff about the 2.0, not as much on the 3.5 but I am sure there are some great examples out there. There are many versions of the 28/2.8 make sure you get the AIs, others are, well, not as good.

B2 (;->
 
BillBingham2 said:
I have the 28/2.8 AIs and it ROCKS. I hear good stuff about the 2.0, not as much on the 3.5 but I am sure there are some great examples out there. There are many versions of the 28/2.8 make sure you get the AIs, others are, well, not as good.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...

And I can second that.
 
I think Bjorn's site is interesting, but I wouldn't buy lenses based on his reviews and minimal samples.

That said, I like the 28/2.8 non CRC (.3m close focus), and non AI. Usually when I mention this, someone comes up and says this is a terrible lens. I also like the low contrast of the 43-86 fixed f3.5 early first zoom, with the high distortion at the zoom extremes.

Another zoom I like is the fixed 4.5 ai 12 element 80-200 zoom, with rect. back.

and of course, the 105/2.5 P*C F version. I have a few AF lens, but they're not the same quality as these old heavy metal ones.
 
Contarama said:
I suppose if you were a really "discerning" RFFer you would use an old 2.8cm 3.5 nikkor rangefinder lens right? :)
Click to expand...

That would be true if I belonged to the RFF Orthodox church, but I am kind of a reformed in that field ;)

That being said, my main 28 are and will remain the Hex and skopar.
 
BillBingham2 said:
I have the 28/2.8 AIs and it ROCKS. I hear good stuff about the 2.0, not as much on the 3.5
Click to expand...

The f/3.5 actually is quite sharp and contrasty and reasonably low distortion, however it (or at least the K type/AI type versions I had) may be the SLR mid wide angle prime with the worst wide-open (if we may even say so of a lens starting at a modest f/3.5) falloff ever - it almost looks like it does not cover the format...
 
sevo said:
The f/3.5 actually is quite sharp and contrasty and reasonably low distortion, however it (or at least the K type/AI type versions I had) may be the SLR mid wide angle prime with the worst wide-open (if we may even say so of a lens starting at a modest f/3.5) falloff ever - it almost looks like it does not cover the format...
Click to expand...

Yes, I hated using the 28/3.5 through the viewfinder...so dark.

The 28/2 is very sharp but the 28/2.8 is legendary. As others have said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom