NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on July 17, 2016, 14:38:21
-
got to have this in the next couple of months :o :o :o
anybody who has one? the FL and speed is just right for street.
-
I have one but am figuring out how to repair as focussing is extremely stiff.
-
I have been thinking about one because combined with the 80-200 f4 I would have all the lenses I would need for a day out (except for any fast primes and a fish-eye of course ;)
-
Richard
Not a fantastic lens, but not bad either. It was made to go with the 50-135mm which is far better quality wise.
Like John's, mine is very stiff to focus - too hard to send it back to the eBay seller in Japan who did not describe this.
I too am waiting for you to take it apart and show how to lubricate it!
Pros
It is very tiny
It seems sharp corner to corner with little vignetting and distortion not noticeable
Color is similar to other Nikons - not super contrasty, with even micro and macro contrast
Not much flare
Cheap!
Cons
Very small focus throw, almost doubles when you push it into macro mode
Lots of distortion in macro mode.
JJ
-
Nothing good can I say about this lens. Sharp, but "dry", half-tones are very narrower, eating highlights, shadows are harsh - due to cheap glass. Helicoid is poorly designed, unreliable and stiff. Got rid of it about 5 years ago, never regret. Avoid it. LZ
-
I happen to like this lens - a lot in fact.
It combines a small size with very capable optics. The restricted zoom range is not a deterrent against its practical usefulness, not at all. I tend to regard the 28-50 as a versatile '35' mm semi-wide lens.
The build is OK, whilst the surface finish and workmanship reflects the age and price level. Nikon could put more efforts into the construction, but on the other hand, my copy still works flawlessly, zooming is smooth, and its focusing travel is easy and positive with no play. Having a CPU in it helps a lot in metering for D3S and Df, the cameras most often used by me with the 28-50.
-
Beautiful examples. Optics are very capable indeed.
-
I used this lens for a short time. For a lens which is about the same size and weight as the AI 35/1.4 you get:
- useful (if somewhat restricted) zoom range from wide to standard
- not too slow f/3.5 aperture
- focuses to 0.6m, with macro mode to 0.32m thankfully at the more useful 50mm end
- good sharpness
- bokeh was ok as far as I remember, not great but not terrible either
- noticeable barrel distortion at 28mm, much less at 35mm and basically zero beyond that
- good colours and contrast
- prone to ghosting - don't use for sunset unless you like coloured blobs of light over your image
Also consider the AFD 28-70/3.5-4.5. In comparison:
- the only other Nikon 28-xx zoom with 52mm filter
- much more useful zoom range
- longer barrel but otherwise similar size and weight
- focus to 0.39m at all zoom settings, no separate macro mode
- better compatibility with modern cameras
- 9 blade apertures (not curved though)
- polycarbonate finish typical of that era, but fairly solid in the hand
- manual focusing ok for an AF lens, at least it has a nice long focus throw
- similar distortion - barrel at 28mm, less at 35mm, not much beyond
- decent sharpness, contrast and colours
- not as prone to ghosting, but not perfect either
-
It depends. My copy of 28-85 AF was better than 28-70, and even better than 28-105. It is lottery, especially with old glass, so, you never know! THX! LZ
-
thank you everybody. looks like a so-so performer. I was expecting something better since this lens seems like it was aimed for the pro. :o :o :o
i am intending to use this for street photography so the only problem i think is the ghosting that some people seem to have with since i love shooting contra-light.
such a pity because it looks like it's such a lovely lens. ::) they do not come cheap here by the way. they cost from $6-$15 max.
i am actually intrigued by the the focusing stiffness that some people claim. does the front of this lens rotate? if it didn't then the only thing that can cause the stiffness is the macro mechanism. ::)
-
Richard, my copy has worked just fine.
Sure it is not built heavy like say a 24-70mm Pro lens is, but on the other hand that is part of its attraction for it is a handy compact sized lens with a wide to normal field of view range with an f/3.5 fixed maximum aperture and some close up capability. I use mine with its HK-12 lens hood which helps to lessen flaring. Try one - that way you will know if it meets your own expectations, which maybe different to mine or others.
My understanding of the lens is that it was designed as part of the E-Series line of lenses, but was finally just branded upon its release as Nikon.
-
I think it is a good lens, but it has limitations.
My copy zooms and focuses smoothly, a lovely lens to handle. There is a slight change in feel as you focus into the macro range but no stiffness.
The front does rotate with focusing (as does the AFD 28-70). The older AI 28-45/4.5 has a fixed filter ring, it does not rotate with focusing. But this lens is bigger, has an even smaller zoom range, is 2/3 stop slower and also suffers from flare in contra-lighting.
If you keep the sun outside the frame, the contrast and flare remain good. The HK-12 hood is quite useful - it fits over the zoom ring so the depth increases as you zoom towards 50mm - it's a "perfect" hood. It does increase the size of the lens a lot though.
I think the 28-50 was conceived as a compact wide lens for the enthusiast, a good companion for the 75-150. Today the AFS 18-35 fills the same niche. If you want a wide pro lens from the 1980s you need to look at the 25-50/4 instead (which also has a rotating filter)
-
Yes, 25-50 is a completely different story. While at 4.0 it is a bit soft, already at 5.6 it's getting very sharp, with extremely deep DOF. Doesn't need 8.0, there will be no more sharpness. I had some difficulties to focus it, so, I used a distance scale, simply like this. Very contrast lens, with good color rendition. Some geometrical distortions are present, so one has to watch it, or improve later. Vignettes a little bit, but not as crazy as 28-50. I may recommend it with open heart, even today. Especially AIS version, with colored diaphragm scale. It has slightly improved MC, the rest is the same. LZ PS. It has one small screw on the front ring. Do not let it gets loose. Otherwise, you may get two halves in the middle of the shooting! Time-to-time, make it tight! Beautiful lens it is! LZ
-
I'm very happy with my copy (focusing and zooming are very smooth, so I don't think stiffness is a design defect) and I have used it a lot as a middle lens in my usual three lenses kit for traveling, being it quite light and small.
I consider it a sharp lens but it has a quite strong field curvature that makes corners blurry, stopping down and a proper focusing to oppose field curvature can give you sharp pictures corner to corner.
Some links to full resolution pictures with D700 and D600.
http://www1.nital.it/uploads/ori/201307/p17upomm56h1o9hv2cp7l5c435.jpg
https://www.nikonclub.it/forum/uploads/ori/201504/52df86217a72eac7977e714b145521fb.jpg
http://www1.nital.it/uploads/ori/201108/gallery_4e40710ced858_2850mm50mm.jpg
http://www1.nital.it/uploads/ori/201108/gallery_4e406b9a4c6ed_285028mm.jpg
http://www1.nital.it/uploads/ori/201302/p17kh7n86pcse4pl1nu81sm16he3.jpg
-
Thanks for the feedbacks.
Now that series E has been mentioned, I was thinking a bit and the front barrel was secured using a (+) headed screw :o :o :o
I recall seeing this on series E lenses ::) Was it the 70-210mm f/4E? I dont know, but the 100-300 f/5.6 lens is built and engineered almost exactly like the 70-210 f/4E, it felt like deja-vü. ::)
it could have been, who knows? it does look like it anyway.
the 25-50mm is too big for my taste. there was one being sold really cheap yesterday, i was tempted but I skipped.
-
Stiff focus may be relieved by adding a tiny drop of Nyoil to the helicoid with an insulin syringe and working it in very well. If necessary add a second and work it in very well. Do NOT over do it!
I learned this from a camera repairman friend.
Dave
-
Hi,
found a very cheap copy of the 28-45: Flares a lot, but is build like a tank and sharp. Love it.
Harald
-
the 25-50mm is too big for my taste. there was one being sold really cheap yesterday, i was tempted but I skipped.
Richard
The 25-50mm is larger but it really is a serious lens, another class completely in terms of sharpness and APO-like lack of CA
A few walk around from the 28-50 - mainly snapshots around Vancouver
JJ
-
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8106/28282784142_3511e3829f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K6fEnm)
Click for a big version: 28-45@28mm f11
-
Hi,
found a very cheap copy of the 28-45: Flares a lot, but is build like a tank and sharp. Love it.
Harald
That's why I am staying with Tamron 20-40 - flared, too, but AF is dead-end, with better contrast/color ratio, than any of them above. So far I am OK, but, if any needs, I'll go for the new Tamron 15-30. Good luck! LZ
-
the pictures look more than acceptable for what i intend to use it for :o :o :o
be careful with injecting stuff into the helicoids as this will react with the grease and there is a huge likelihood that the grease will harden after a period of time. ::)
these lenses end up cheap on yahoo auctions and find their way to my collection ::)
the 20-40 tamron is legendary.
-
(https://c2.staticfrimptootr.com/8/7311/27779280833_ef698622d9_o.jpg)
25-50mm f/4 @f/11 on D3
-
Sensational photo Fons!
-
So there is a 28-50, a 25-50, and a 28-45??
-
All of them exist.
The first wide-angle zoom was the 28-45/4.5, later to be refined as the 25-50/4. The 28-50/3.5 is the youngest of them, made to provide a cheaper and smaller alternative.
-
Richard,
I'll toss out the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkor as an alternative to the original lens in question. It has one hybrid aspheric element. It's quite well made as compared to many AF lenses. It has quite reasonable flare and ghost for it's era with 8 elements in 7 groups. It's decent wide open and very nice one stop down. It's small and unobtrusive. I use it with a Nikon HN-3 hood and no filter for protection. I use a Tupperware #G tumbler cap on the HN-3. I own two of them. The first cost $84.00 USD from KEH.com.
Best,
Dave
---
I own a 25-50/4.0 AIS and like the lens very much. The only down side is the 90 degree throw on the focus ring. The 25-50/4.0 AI has the same short throw which makes manual focusing more difficult.
-
My previous film-era wide-angle zooms were the manual focus 25-50mm f/4 and the autofocus 20-35 f/2.8. The former was a joy to use with film but is quite large and heavy. The latter is better as an autofocus lens, and it's quite poor in the outer reaches of a photo when shot at f/2.8.
While I've been using only digital for the past 5 years, I've kept my old film cameras and lenses and I still expect to use them once in a while. While I haven't actually done this yet ::), I went ahead and bought a copy of the Nikkor 28-50 f/3.5 for its small size and decent photographic quality, with the expectation that it could be a reasonable walkabout lens. I could always throw in my Series E 100mm f/2.8 for a very small and lightweight kit.
I went ahead and did some casual test shots - nothing rigorous, all handheld. I didn't alter colors or saturation directly, but revised exposure, contrast, and highlights as needed to avoid or minimize clipping. All photos are modestly sharpened. As always, any negative results may be due to sample variation or user error.
I found infinity to be quite soft, especially at the wide end. I'll have to return to that with a tripod and live view and see what I can find out. This might be sample variation or even wear and tear; my copy has the stiff zoom action others have mentioned. F/3.5 is not that sharp, but then these were handheld shots on a D7200, with focusing done via the focus dot. Your results may vary. One of these days I need to get a Df or Df2. ;)
Liquidamber styraciflua
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5488/30794447156_3e81959fa0_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVcAh5)_DSC1399 (https://flic.kr/p/NVcAh5) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Closeup
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5532/30794441666_078fe41018_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVcyDq)_DSC1396 (https://flic.kr/p/NVcyDq) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Actual pixels from the selected focus point. The spiny object is a fruit to a botanist and a seed capsule to everyone else.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5627/30794443106_b338bbacf3_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVcz5f)_DSC1396_center_crop (https://flic.kr/p/NVcz5f) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Flowers in macro mode. These flowers always give me fits as the red channel blows out so massively it's hard to fix without serious underexposure. So please tolerate my processing in which I tried to tame the raging histogram.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5550/30794443706_d2e112bb24_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVczfA)_DSC1405 (https://flic.kr/p/NVczfA) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5730/30794444316_7d6703136b_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVczr7)_DSC1407 (https://flic.kr/p/NVczr7) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Actual pixels; I tried to focus on the center of the flower, and the insect took off before I could catch it on the flower.
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5750/30794445246_8c2dfa8455_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVczH9)_DSC1407_center_crop (https://flic.kr/p/NVczH9) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
At 28mm
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5694/30794465486_ef428c5051_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVcFJ7)_DSC1412 (https://flic.kr/p/NVcFJ7) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Massively underexposed in post for fun
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5817/30794448256_25707e0a1a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NVcAB3)_DSC1418 (https://flic.kr/p/NVcAB3) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
-
Nice!
I saw a sample and it was as sharp as I wanted wide-open. unfortunately, I wasnt in the mood to throw ￥7,500 away for that at that moment. I may get back to it as I recognise that it is an exceptional copy despite the dusts inside. Ric.
-
Quite a nice little lens if you can live with the limited zoom range - I tend to think of it as a flexible 35!
Just don't point it into the sun - lots of coloured blobs all over your image!
-
And some more...
A Tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus, Eucalyptus globulus
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5726/30199371524_2e7c5cd1d7_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/N1BF2o)_DSC1421 (https://flic.kr/p/N1BF2o) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Actual pixel crop
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5664/30199378474_e1393dcc0f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/N1BH6d)_DSC1421_center_crop (https://flic.kr/p/N1BH6d) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Shot into a little bit of sun
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5570/30199377464_f78eb1b33f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/N1BGMN)_DSC1423 (https://flic.kr/p/N1BGMN) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Fly on a tree, cropped
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5805/30199372614_c85cea226b_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/N1BFmb)_DSC1428 (https://flic.kr/p/N1BFmb) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Actual pixels near center of original photo
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5707/30199376204_5acc277a33_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/N1BGq5)_DSC1428_fly_crop (https://flic.kr/p/N1BGq5) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Howard McMinn manzanita, Arctostaphylos densiflora "Howard McMinn"
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5826/30743245091_00d8c50c1e_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NQFaFR)_DSC1441 (https://flic.kr/p/NQFaFR) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
Actual pixels
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5350/30199374454_811cd65133_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/N1BFTU)_DSC1441_twig_crop (https://flic.kr/p/N1BFTU) by Bill de Jager (https://www.flickr.com/photos/99349448@N06/), on Flickr
-
nice pics! i wonder how bad the reported flare problem is :o :o :o
Bill's pics all seem OK to me
-
Not particular sharp IMHO
-
It depends. My copy of 28-85 AF was better than 28-70, and even better than 28-105. It is lottery, especially with old glass, so, you never know! THX! LZ
I believe one should do a careful lens test with an eye for decentering and spacing issue caused by impact. The I had one or two AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkors before getting two good one. I kept both. I reviewed two good AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkors and kept both. I had an AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkor that incorrectly reported it's zoom position. I sold the replacement as I preferred the smaller lenses. The lenses I kept cost $74.00 to $109.00 (USD). I keep a 28-70, 35-105 and AF 50/1.8 with my D300s. One of the 28-70(s) stays with my D800.
I probably decentered my AF 35-70/2.8D. I may have fumbled the bag my 35-70/2.8 was in. I had a rash of lenses with image smearing in one direction only at aperatures larger than f/6.3. None of the afflicted lenses showed signs of impact.
A lottery is a good description of my recently passed used lens buying experience.
Dave Hartman
-
Not particular sharp IMHO
I would hope that focusing on a Df might give better results than the focus dot I used.
-
I have had great results with my 28-50 on the Df.
-
An image to indicate the current weather situation ... The lens is easy to focus on this camera in my experience. In fact, doing quite a bit better than the 25-50/4, which usually is my first choice for this kind of wide lens.
(Df, 28-50 Nikkor)
-
Hi Bjørn,
in which terms is it better? I want to try one... ;)
Harald
-
"Better" as in terms of handling and the manner it can be focused accurately with the Df. The 25-50 is much better for shooting into bright object like the sun, though, but I found it slightly difficult to focus with my Df and the stock screen. Must try with the K-3 screen now installed in the Df one of these days to learn whether it makes focusing easier with either lens.
-
Another scene too commonly seen these days. Df with the 28-50 AIS.
-
wow! and the leaves are still green over here :o :o :o
those pictures that you guys are posting are making me lust for this thing ::)
-
The one down side for the 25-50/4.0 AIS for me is a short throw on the focus ring and light touch on same. I wonder how hard it would be to put heavier grease in that lens?
Dave Hartman
--;
I checked KEH.com and they don't have a 28-50/3.5 AIS. Are they hard to find?
Dave
-
The 28-50 is neither very common nor very rare. Thus random fluctuations in the market decide whether you find a sample.
-
here in Japan it's seasonal. there are time when you get a lot of them and there are times when you don't. some shop owners aren't even aware that they exist :o :o :o
-
thank you everybody. looks like a so-so performer. I was expecting something better since this lens seems like it was aimed for the pro. :o :o :o
i am intending to use this for street photography so the only problem i think is the ghosting that some people seem to have with since i love shooting contra-light.
such a pity because it looks like it's such a lovely lens. ::) they do not come cheap here by the way. they cost from $6-$15 max.
i am actually intrigued by the the focusing stiffness that some people claim. does the front of this lens rotate? if it didn't then the only thing that can cause the stiffness is the macro mechanism. ::)
I agree with Bjørn (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3982.msg60718.html#msg60718) and John Geerts (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3982.msg60728.html#msg60728) (who also showed how good the lens can be for wide to standard shots): the Zoom-Nikkor 28-50mm f/3.5 AI-S is a very nice lens!
I think some of the attempted (unclear) macro examples on the previous pages are more reflective of poor technique than any problem with the lens. (Too many people give a half-hearted macro effort, don't get a good result, and then blame the lens.)
It is very hard to get small subjects razor-sharp, especially if you're cropping, and almost impossible if you're just hand-holding taking a casual snapshot.
If you use this lens as a precision tool, and actually try to take good macro shots, you can do so very easily as I demonstrate here (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg107479.html#msg107479).
The lens is far from being a Voigtländer, or other exemplary lens, so it's not going to break any records. Still, it is definitely capable ... and if you use good technique, you will get decent results ... and enjoy the fact that this lens is about as light, versatile, and handy as a lens can be in one package.
-
NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights - 25-50mm f/4.0 AIs (http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0046/index.htm)
I thought this might be of interest.
Dave
-
(https://c2.staticfrimptootr.com/8/7311/27779280833_ef698622d9_o.jpg)
25-50mm f/4 @f/11 on D3
Going through this thread i notice no picture showing, trying to modify there is a strange link for the image!
Admin?
Admin: the URL gives a 404 Error. Nothing we can do until that issue is sorted, unfortunately.
-
If i recollect it may have been this
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8089/28317178701_249622e1f8_o.jpg)
-
terrible distortion at 28mm but otherwise a very nice lens :o :o :o
-
Distortion at 28mm? Here an image at 28mm.
-
And 28mm at f/8 Love the colours.
-
Natuurmuseum Brabant, where is this John?
'Guess 'ah could have answered this myself, http://www.natuurmuseumbrabant.nl (http://www.natuurmuseumbrabant.nl)
-
Yes, Tilburg, Fons ;)
-
That is super, Fons!
-
good for you, mine looks worse than that :o :o :o
can't find the picture, though ::)
-
Very nice images, Fons and John ;)
-
NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights - 25-50mm f/4.0 AIs (http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0046/index.htm)
I thought this might be of interest.
Dave
I took 5 different old, Nikkor AI-S zoom lenses through their paces, as all-around useful tools for the field ... both properly-oriented ... as well as reversed. The idea was to find a "can do it all" lens in one optic for traveling light.
Of the five lenses tested (36-72mm Series E, 35-70mm AI-S, 28-50mm AI-S, 28-85mm AI-S, 25-50mm AI-S), the 25-50 f/4 was a cut above, in build quality and in optical quality, with almost Apo sharpness and rendering.
The trouble is, the 25-50 was the heaviest and the least-handy for macro. (It could not do 1:4 either properly-oriented or reversed. It could not do 1:2 either properly-oriented or reversed. It could not do 1:1 either properly-oriented or reversed. When reversed, it had an extreme macro range, beginning at 1.6x ending at 3.4x.) Properly-oriented the closest you could get is .6m with a 1:10 reproduction ratio. Too bad, because optically it was the best of the bunch.
The most versatile was the 28-85mm AI-S (which could go from 1:4 all the way to ~3:1, reversed), as well as having the greatest range properly-oriented (28 to 85mm) and could also do 1:4 properly-oriented. Trouble was, when reversed, the tiny 28-85mm AI-S zoom ring was not intuitive to use while using it to change magnifications. I always had to stop what I was doing, look down at my camera/lens, and figure out how to use the zoom to increase/decrease magnification.
By contrast, the 28-50 was the best balance of most-versatile to most-intuitive-to-operate. The push-pull zoom, using the large focus ring, made the difference, both properly-oriented as well as reversed.
Want to go from 28mm (wide) to 50mm (closer) with the lens properly-oriented? Push the zoom out. (Or pull it in to go wide.)
Want to get closer from 1:1 (wide) to almost 3:1 (ultra-close) with the lens reversed? Again, push the zoom out. (Or pull it in to decrease magnification.)
Never had to take my eye off the target, either properly-oriented or reversed, with the 28-50 f/3.5: it was ergonomically-excellent.
While not quite as optically-excellent as the 25-50 f/4, the 28-50 f/3.5 was still a good performer ... with the advantage of being lighter, much friendlier to use, with far more overall field-usefulness ... in one lens 8)
-
Thanks John.
Agree with your findings. With the combination of size, handling and quality the 28-50 is preferable.
You didn't mention the 35-70/3.5 Ai which comes close in quality compared to the 25-50/4. The Ai is a completely different lens than the Ai-S.
The Angenieux 35-70/2.5 (In the Ai-S Nikon mouth) is my preferred zoom lens for mid-range. With good Macro capability , smooth bokeh, excellent contrast and colour it's outstanding, but not easy to find.
-
Thanks John.
Agree with your findings. With the combination of size, handling and quality the 28-50 is preferable.
You didn't mention the 35-70/3.5 Ai which comes close in quality compared to the 25-50/4. The Ai is a completely different lens than the Ai-S.
The Angenieux 35-70/2.5 (In the Ai-S Nikon mouth) is my preferred zoom lens for mid-range. With good Macro capability , smooth bokeh, excellent contrast and colour it's outstanding, but not easy to find.
(http://johnkoerner.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/all-small.jpg)
Thanks John.
I did mention the 35-70 AI-S, but didn't bother with the AI, because at the end of the day its limitations would be the same.
The 28-50 offers a bit more as a wide-angle (28mm to 35), and a bit deeper-in as a macro (2.4x compared to 2.1).
Price-wise they're about the same, build-wise they're about the same (with the 35-70 being bulkier/heavier, yet not feeling qualitatively superior). The 35-70 offers no advantage, only disadvantages, and was more similar to the 28-85 than the 28-50. Even if the AI had slightly-better optics, its limitations remain.
In fact, the 35-70 (AI or AI-S) is essentially a hamstrung 28-85: neither as wide, nor as long ... and stops at 2.1x macro (whereas the 28-85 gets up to 2.9x) ... with essentially the same cumbersome ergonomics and zoom ring placement as the 28-85.
Meanwhile, the 36-72 Series E was ergonomically-similar to the 28-50 AI-S, but was also a hamstrung step-down from it (in the same "not as wide, not as deep macro" limitation).
As a wildlife photographer, with a bias toward macro, my struggle was choosing between the 28-85 and the 28-50 AI-Ses.
Although the 28-85 had more total flexibility, I felt the latter was the better choice, because of absolutely-friendly ergonomics, so I was willing to limit myself to 2.4x magnification (rather than 2.9x) in favor of the lighter, user-friendly 28-50.
Meanwhile, build-wise, quality-optics-wise, the 25-50 was in a class by itself IMO.
[If it allowed 1:4 proximity, it would have not even been a contest (although its ergonomics were't that intuitive, either, when reversed, and it was the heaviest of the bunch).]
Full article coming soon ...
-
I think some of the attempted (unclear) macro examples on the previous pages are more reflective of poor technique than any problem with the lens. (Too many people give a half-hearted macro effort, don't get a good result, and then blame the lens.)
It is very hard to get small subjects razor-sharp, especially if you're cropping, and almost impossible if you're just hand-holding taking a casual snapshot.
If you use this lens as a precision tool, and actually try to take good macro shots, you can do so very easily as I demonstrate here (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg107479.html#msg107479).
All the iffy ~macro shots (with lack of full sharpness at the pixel level) referred to were mine so it would seem this was directed at my photos.
My shots were on a quick familiarization shoot with the casual techniques I used (handheld, focus dot) disclosed, along with my reasonable uncertainty over the meaning of the results. I included both reduced resolution shots and actual pixel crops. However, I never went back to do a proper tripod shoot with this lens to better test its macro capabilities.
At the time I wanted to get a sense of how the lens would handle if used casually for near-macro shots between other kinds of shooting, something that I formerly did a lot and which I still do when I need to be light and mobile. These days my serious landscape and macro photography, as well as my lens tests, are generally done using a sturdy tripod and head along with live-view focusing, mirror up, electronic first curtain when available, and a wireless remote. That's great for sharp results but not very practical for casual or highly mobile use.
In case there is any question, I also never blamed the lens for the closeup results. I was very open about the reality that my results were limited by technique. The reduced-resolution photos I posted did show generally pleasing optical behavior. However, I found my copy to be soft at infinity, a result that cannot be ascribed to technique. There's also the matter that my copy arrived already well-used, which may have affected its performance.
It is very hard to get small subjects razor-sharp, especially if you're cropping, and almost impossible if you're just hand-holding taking a casual snapshot.
If you use this lens as a precision tool, and actually try to take good macro shots, you can do so very easily as I demonstrate here (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg107479.html#msg107479).
One of the handiest little lenses I have ever owned, if not the handiest. If you don't feel like carrying a bunch of stuff, it can get a lot accomplished by itself, and a reverse-ring in your pocket.
John, these two statements would seem to be in conflict. Do you believe that handheld macro is practical or not?
-
All the iffy ~macro shots (with lack of full sharpness at the pixel level) referred to were mine so it would seem this was directed at my photos.
My shots were on a quick familiarization shoot with the casual techniques I used (handheld, focus dot) disclosed, along with my reasonable uncertainty over the meaning of the results. I included both reduced resolution shots and actual pixel crops. However, I never went back to do a proper tripod shoot with this lens to better test its macro capabilities.
Which pretty much underscores what I said.
At the time I wanted to get a sense of how the lens would handle if used casually for near-macro shots between other kinds of shooting, something that I formerly did a lot and which I still do when I need to be light and mobile. These days my serious landscape and macro photography, as well as my lens tests, are generally done using a sturdy tripod and head along with live-view focusing, mirror up, electronic first curtain when available, and a wireless remote. That's great for sharp results but not very practical for casual or highly mobile use.
We agree.
Best practice always mandates a tripod, etc.; however, sometimes we just don't feel like bringing them ... and yet want to have "a camera" available, just in case.
I also never blamed the lens for the closeup results; I was very open about the reality that my results were limited by technique. The reduced-resolution photos I posted did show generally pleasing optical behavior. However, I found my copy to be soft at infinity, a result that cannot be ascribed to technique. There's also the matter that my copy arrived already well-used, which may have affected its performance.
That's reasonable.
I think we all take new lenses for "a casual spin," to get a sense if they seem any good or not, and then we take more serious steps with them if it seems to be worthwhile.
John, these two statements would seem to be in conflict. Do you believe that handheld macro is practical or not?
Apologize for the ambiguity.
If I want the best macro images I can possibly get, I will always use a tripod.
However, one can get decent/excellent handheld macro shots if he 1) uses a diffused flash, to limit the effects of movement, and 2) uses the optimal magnification for the subject before he fires the shot.
You could have taken a decent shot of that fly, hand-held, had you used the same 28-50 lens, reversed, with a properly-diffused flash to limit the effects of movement, and by adjusting the zoom to the proper magnification (framing). This would have allowed you to capture all the pixels you could possibly have captured, which would have translated to a better image.
What you did was take a snapshot with the lens properly-oriented ... which meant the fly was but a speck on the frame ... and then you cropped-in to show the fly "larger" ... making it a very poor-quality image.
Had you "taken the shot seriously" with your same camera/lens combo ... which IMO meant had you reversed the lens ... adjusted the zoom for proper/optimal magnification/framing ... and then used a diffused flash to limit any movement effect ... you would have come out with a much better result IMO.
Hope this clarifies.
-
Thanks for the clarification, John. As you said, I took the lens out for a quick spin that day. I'd previously seen reasonable complaints here that posting of reduced-size photos doesn't really show how well a lens behaves. Nevertheless, I should have left out the pixel-level crops from my posts given the limitations of the technique I used in taking those photos. Including them at all was counterproductive, as they primarily reflected technique rather than lens quality.
In terms of my own skill set and practices, I think one problem here is that somehow I all along ignored the technique (which I have heard of before) of using diffused flash in the field to freeze motion for macro shots. Indoors, sure. Fill flash outdoors, sure. Outdoor macro - no flash, just absolutely minimize vibration if I have the right setup with me. It's funny how we get into mental ruts sometimes.
Nevertheless, I have all the needed tools in my possession (flashes, diffusers, reversing rings). Your suggested approach seems like a useful technique to start practicing now for those times when a tripod is not desired or practical.
-
Thanks for the clarification, John. As you said, I took the lens out for a quick spin that day. I'd previously seen reasonable complaints here that posting of reduced-size photos doesn't really show how well a lens behaves. Nevertheless, I should have left out the pixel-level crops from my posts given the limitations of the technique I used in taking those photos. Including them at all was counterproductive, as they primarily reflected technique rather than lens quality.
In terms of my own skill set and practices, I think one problem here is that somehow I all along ignored the technique (which I have heard of before) of using diffused flash in the field to freeze motion for macro shots. Indoors, sure. Fill flash outdoors, sure. Outdoor macro - no flash, just absolutely minimize vibration if I have the right setup with me. It's funny how we get into mental ruts sometimes.
Nevertheless, I have all the needed tools in my possession (flashes, diffusers, reversing rings). Your suggested approach seems like a useful technique to start practicing now for those times when a tripod is not desired or practical.
So true. And good thoughts.
Funny, because I just put a reverse-ring on my 20mm AI-S this afternoon (a lens that has produced exemplary result) ... just to post a couple of Facebook nature shots ... and took "a few quick" shots of a jumping spider and a rather interesting fly, with strange eyes. Used a new (smaller) flash diffuser to give "that" for a spin.
Took a total of 48 images, all hand-held, with the new diffuser (and not wanting to trouble myself with the tripod).
The result? All 48 images went into the recycle bin ;D
The diffuser (smaller though it may be) was too harsh ... and my desire for "quickness" (before I went back to work) cost me the detail I wanted.
As the saying goes, "Shortcuts are always the longest distance between where you are and where you want to be." :D
-
An Aside - The British Army's "7-Ps" might apply here:
Poor Prior Planning Produces Piss Poor Performance
or
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
and so the saying goes........... ;D
-
Here are some play shots I took at Zion National Park with the 28-50 AI-S (@ both 28 and 50mm extremes, respectively) ...
All shots on a tripod + live view + hands-off, 2-second timer:
-
A couple more, @ 28mm and 50mm, respectively:
Not as good as AI-S primes, and definitely not as good as Zeiss primes, but okay nonetheless.