NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Tri-x on May 18, 2017, 15:48:22
-
Hi
I want to buy a 24mm 2.8 Nikkor and a 135 mm 2.8 Nikkor. Both Manual Focus AI-S.
Looking on the WWW I see different versions around.
I know that aperture blades need to be dry, no fungus on glass smooth focussing ect.
It's more what version is superior to the other versions?
Can one recommend which are the best to go for?
Many thanks in advance
Best regards
Hans
-
The preferred version depends largely on the camera model. Old Nikons which can mount pre-AI Nikkors allow virtually any manual-focus Nikkor to be used. The earlier models of the 24/2.8 labelled Nikkor -N (or preferablky, -NC for multicoating) have smallest aperture f/16 and would be my first choice for say an F2. If it is had as pre-AI, asking price tends to be much lower as well as the because these vintage lenses are going slowly out of fashion (many of the modern Nikons can only mount AI or AIS lenses; the Df being a noteworthy exception; some lower-end models from the D3xxx or D5xxx sometimes can use the old lenses but then without metering). One can find even these old lenses already modified for AI (described as AI'd or similar phrases).
Instead of the 135/2.8, I'd recommend hte classic legend 105/2.5 Nikkor.
Roland Vink's Nikon pages http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ are a treasure chest of pertinent information on Nikkor old and new. A resource many of us visit frequently.
-
I second what Bjørn has noted above. I have numerous MF Nikon lenses and have purchased the majority from the Fred Miranda site (Fredmiranda.com) as the purchase experience is "safer" than though the Bay, etc. Also have a look at KEH.com - another reputable retailer. You can get most Pre-AI Nikon lenses converted to AI and therefore usable on most modern Nikon cams by John White in Michigan at "AIConversions.com" The cost is minimal & John has worked on several of mine & does a great job. Of course, all of this assumes you are located in N America to make shipping easier. Good luck
-
Hi, Hans, welcome to NG!
I used to use the Nikkor-NC version on a film body, and it showed less distortion than then-current Ais version. Due to the high-index glass of the time NC was produced, the NC shows a bit of yellowish tint. Ais was free of such tint.
So long as you use it on a film body, I would go for the NC version. Its focus throw is longer than that of Ais, which makes the pre-focus shooting by guesstimating the distance easier. I'm not sure which would perform better on digital, though.
-
Thanks Bjorn,
I read about the 105 mm lens and understand that there is a Gauss version and a Sonnar version?
The Gauss version seems to be the better one? Should it be de P.C. version or are the later once equal or better?
Thanks DougB
I live in the Netherlands (Europe) but agree that ebay is not the most reliable site to get good stuff.
But if stuff comes from the US to the EU the customs jump on it and grab VAT and other taxes out of my wallet. It's the law, I know bus sometimes this hurts :'(
I prefer to get a lens already AI ready so no conversion needed.
-
Hi Arika,
I just now see you post, we must have cross posted I suppose :D
What do you mean by NC versions?
Sorry I ask but I'm not well known on these terms :-[
-
Nikkor-N (N=nine elements), -NC (nine elements, the 'C' signifies multicoating). Nikon did this in the earliest stage of launching multicoated lenses to denote the difference, probably as a marketing strategy. Later all lenses were assumes to be multicoated and they dropped the extra label.
-
Is the 24/2.8 K version not optically the same as the N C version?
-
Yes, the 24/2.8 K (last pre-AI version) is optically the same as the N-C version, with 9 elements in 7 groups, fully multicoated. The K version is a bit nicer though, it has 7 aperture blades compared to 6 for the older versions, which I think gives nicer shaped out of focus blurs. It also stops down to f22 instead of f16 for the older versions, if you need to stop down that far.
The optics changed with the AI version to 9 elements in 9 groups, in a slightly more compact design. The same optics went essentially unchanged to the AIS, AF and AFD versions.
-
When a newer version offers f/22 instead of merely f/16 it is only natural to assume the optical design has been tweaked. Perhaps not to an extent that will show up on a lens drawing, but allowing the smaller aperture must adversely impact performance unless some additional fine-tuning had been introduced. Going from 6 to 7 aperture blades points towards the same.
As Nikon very rarely disclose such information, we'll never know for certain.
-
My preference for the 105 is the AI, but the K is more or less identical in particular after being AI-modified. The K does have a very slight edge in handling by its broader and scalloped focusing collar, but nothing major. As long as the lens either is AI or at least has the "C" symbol to mark it as being multi-coated, all is well.
The "Sonnar" vs "Gauss" (or Xenotar) can be easily differentiated by the much larger rear element of the latter. The first is less contrasty and flares easier, yet delivers quite respective performance. I distinctly recall the first time I used one of the PC (Xenotar) lenses and was very surprised to see its beautiful colour rendition and more "snappy" rendition than the "Sonnar" version I used at that time, so I quickly swapped. Over time I have amassed each and every version of this classic 105 but my evaluation of them has not changed over the years. Today I'm using an AI on my Df.
The AIS has straight-edged aperture blades so its bokeh might be a bit more nervous. Also, the slide-out hood tends to be wobbly and thus is not to everyone's liking.
-
Instead of the 135/2.8, I'd recommend hte classic legend 105/2.5 Nikkor.
Roland Vink's Nikon pages http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ are a treasure chest of pertinent information on Nikkor old and new. A resource many of us visit frequently.
Bjørn, would you say that the 105mm 2.5 is optically superior to the 135mm 2.8 AI/AIS? If so, would that also apply to the 135mm 3.5 AI/AIS?
-
'Superior' is a tricky term. These lenses have their strong and weak sides. I'd rank the 105 above the two there for its overall well-balanced quality and handling. There were good reasons why Nikon users over a very long period of time preferred the 105; in fact, when I first entered photography in the '60s, only Nikon had it in their lens line while the other brands offered 135.
That being said, the 135/2.8 is also very good, while the 135/3.5 due to its simpler optical design always had a little less "snap". However, the f/3.5 performs very well for IR.
-
'Superior' is a tricky term. These lenses have their strong and weak sides. I'd rank the 105 above the two there for its overall well-balanced quality and handling. There were good reasons why Nikon users over a very long period of time preferred the 105; in fact, when I first entered photography in the '60s, only Nikon had it in their lens line while the other brands offered 135.
That being said, the 135/2.8 is also very good, while the 135/3.5 due to its simpler optical design always had a little less "snap". However, the f/3.5 performs very well for IR.
1. Yes, I appreciate that, like what is the case with people, it is not possible to find all the desired qualities in one single entity. That is why there are different lenses, and that is why most people who make many pictures have several - if not also many - different lenses.
2. As a matter of fact, I have owned the 135mm 2.8 AI for some years now (purchased second hand) and even if I agree that it is competent I have yet to see the exquisite brilliance I might have expected. Of course, I still hope that this is partially caused by my novice status in extracting the most out from my NEF files. I only purchased my D750 a month ago - after much pondering over whether to choose the D750 or the D810. The expectation that the former would perform a hair's breadth better in very dark environments was the deciding factor.
-
When a newer version offers f/22 instead of merely f/16 it is only natural to assume the optical design has been tweaked. Perhaps not to an extent that will show up on a lens drawing, but allowing the smaller aperture must adversely impact performance unless some additional fine-tuning had been introduced. Going from 6 to 7 aperture blades points towards the same.
As Nikon very rarely disclose such information, we'll never know for certain.
It is possible the design was tweaked at this point, but the optical drawings I have seen for the Nikkor-N and K versions (from old dealer sales manuals) show identical dimensions. Of course, the drawings are not always 100% accurate, and they don't show if glass materials changed.
Going from 6 to 7 aperture blades has no bearing on the optical design, perhaps it was simply to have a more consistent design or bokeh across the range - most lenses at the time had 7 aperture blades (although the K 85/1.8 retained 6 blades when it surely would have benefited from having 7 or more blades). Other lenses also had changes to the number of aperture blades with no apparent change to the optics, for example early Nikkor-N 35/1.5 had 9 blades, later reduced to 7.
Allowing a lens to close down an extra stop also says little about whether the optics changed or not. Many wide and standard lenses from the 1960s only stopped down to f16, while later versions (some which have the same or very similar optics) stop down to f22. I presume Nikon realised that some photographers wanted the extra DOF.
But as you say, we will never know for certain. What I can say is the 24/2.8 N-C is at least very similar to the K 24/2.8 :)
-
I second what Bjørn has noted above. I have numerous MF Nikon lenses and have purchased the majority from the Fred Miranda site (Fredmiranda.com) as the purchase experience is "safer" than though the Bay, etc. Also have a look at KEH.com - another reputable retailer.
Of course I fully agree that the Fred Miranda site is eminently reputable as is KEH, but I became a little curious when you seem to suggest that "Bay" (eBay) provides a less safe purchase experience. I have made many purchases through eBay, I have picked Excellent or Near Mint manual Nikkors, and I have never been disappointed let alone exposed to any form of fraud. What did you mean by your statement, have you had bad experiences?
-
Yes, we can agree there.
The change of aperture construction had also to do with the way aberrations manifested themselves. Nikon did a lot of research and experiment with their designs to make them not optically "better", but also more pleasing to the eye.
Most people doing extensive business on eBay have experienced the occasional bad apple amongst the sellers. I have met scamming attempts but think they are more infrequent now and eBay buyer protection concurrently has improved. If in doubt pay with credit cards so if you have been had, you can ask the credit company to engage in the sale. The last 12 months I have had a handful of eBay interventions on my behalf and no money has been lost although compensations some times arrive slowly.
I have only good experiences with KEH over the years, but their prices tend to be pretty high on many items and there is often excessively prices on shipping. Thus KEH is the place to go mainly for higher-priced gear think stuff that is expensive everywhere and one wants to cut risks of doing a bad purchase.
-
Bjørn, would you say that the 105mm 2.5 is optically superior to the 135mm 2.8 AI/AIS? If so, would that also apply to the 135mm 3.5 AI/AIS?
I've, like many others I'm sure, owned (single) copies of the 105/2.5 AI, 135/3.5 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, and 135/2 AIS. Of these, the 135/2.8 AIS was the weakest by a significant margin for sharpness contrast, etc. Hence the 105/2.5, 135/3.5, and 135/2 AIS were kept on (though the 135/3.5 was eventually sold and replaced by the 135/3.4 APO Telyt, it was a very very good lens).
I would say in order of overall optical goodness of the three lenses you mentioned would be:
105/2.5 > 135/3.5 >> 135/2.8 (i.e., the 105/2.5 being the better of the three).
My 2 c.
- J
-
I've, like many others I'm sure, owned (single) copies of the 105/2.5 AI, 135/3.5 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, and 135/2 AIS. Of these, the 135/2.8 AIS was the weakest by a significant margin for sharpness contrast, etc. Hence the 105/2.5, 135/3.5, and 135/2 AIS were kept on (though the 135/3.5 was eventually sold and replaced by the 135/3.4 APO Telyt, it was a very very good lens).
I would say in order of overall optical goodness of the three lenses you mentioned would be:
105/2.5 > 135/3.5 >> 135/2.8 (i.e., the 105/2.5 being the better of the three).
My 2 c.
- J
Thank you, jhinkey. I own the 135mm 2.8 AI - which I suppose is optically the same as the AIS version - and it definitely is the least brilliant among my MF Nikkors. Hence, I recently ordered (through eBay) a 135mm 3.5 AIS in the expectation that it will provide a visibly better optical performance.
-
@ Hans
At the moment there are several 2.5/105mm's offered on Marktplaats
There's an Nikkormat FtN for sale with a 28, 50 and 2.5/105mm for sale, considering the body mentioned very likely to be pre A-i lenses
Similarly there is a 2.5/105mm (not clear whether it's the Gauss or Sonnar version) for sale since May 7th no one apparently has made a bid on yet
There's also a 1.8/105mm for sale, but that version does not have the near mythical reputation of the 2.5
There also a a pre AI 2.5/105 for sale (for Eur 90 !!) at a classical camera store in Rotterdam, but the seller himself mentions it shows signs of regular use :(
That said, I personally never liked the 2.5/105mm I bought in the late 70's together with my F2AS (I think it was a Gauss version).
Probably my fault, as I primarily used it as a low light short tele, usually wide open with shutterspeeds of around 1/60th
Which as a rule resulted in blurry images due to camera shake, and after a while I traded it in for a 2/85mm Ais.
Not a brilliant performer, but a good/practical workhorse lens for the low light shooting I used it for
There also are several 24mm's for sale, even a 2.8/24mm Ais for Eur 129, but they all appear to be more modern (not preAi or N-C) versions and might not be what you're looking for
HTH
-
Thank you, jhinkey. I own the 135mm 2.8 AI - which I suppose is optically the same as the AIS version - and it definitely is the least brilliant among my MF Nikkors. Hence, I recently ordered (through eBay) a 135mm 3.5 AIS in the expectation that it will provide a visibly better optical performance.
Yes, my 135/3.5 was pretty darned good for sharpness on my D800, but its age was showing due to low contrast. The 135/3.4 is way better in this regard.
-
Hi Arika,
I just now see you post, we must have cross posted I suppose :D
What do you mean by NC versions?
Sorry I ask but I'm not well known on these terms :-[
Hans, sorry for my belated response. As explained by Bjørn, "N" means that the optics of the lens consists of nine elements. The early Nikkor lenses employed the naming system based on the mixture of the Latin and Greek numbers (nona, in this case).
-
I've, like many others I'm sure, owned (single) copies of the 105/2.5 AI, 135/3.5 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, and 135/2 AIS. Of these, the 135/2.8 AIS was the weakest by a significant margin for sharpness contrast, etc. Hence the 105/2.5, 135/3.5, and 135/2 AIS were kept on (though the 135/3.5 was eventually sold and replaced by the 135/3.4 APO Telyt, it was a very very good lens).
I would say in order of overall optical goodness of the three lenses you mentioned would be:
105/2.5 > 135/3.5 >> 135/2.8 (i.e., the 105/2.5 being the better of the three).
My 2 c.
- J
The suggestion is made the 135/2.8 is a bad lens, which it isn't. It is a great lens, and very compact ! Of course it is a little bit less sharper (if that is the only goal) than a brilliant lens like the 105/2.5 but it has it's own merits, what Bjørn also indicated. I like the lens for back up, because it is easy to take with you if you need some tele-work.
At f/4 onwards it's is pretty sharp, and the bokeh is actually very good at f/2.8. The bit of 'softness' wide open works great for portraits.
-
Of course I fully agree that the Fred Miranda site is eminently reputable as is KEH, but I became a little curious when you seem to suggest that "Bay" (eBay) provides a less safe purchase experience. I have made many purchases through eBay, I have picked Excellent or Near Mint manual Nikkors, and I have never been disappointed let alone exposed to any form of fraud. What did you mean by your statement, have you had bad experiences?
Ebay can be so many things, one just have to do the homework on checking out reputation of the seller. Any problematic situation I have encountered was resolved without problems, refund given in a timely manner. Several of my ebay purchases have ended up with great deals from Roberts (a US photo store who also sells on ebay). They were really nice to deal with on the phone when I had problems with an asymmetrical aperture of a 200/4 AIS; they went though and visually inspected aperture on all their samples to get me the best one.
One thing to consider regarding which version to get is also if one plans to chip the lens, and if so if it will be used on one of the 3000 or 5000 series bodies (or the recently announced D7500). Then it is best to go for the AIS versions as the AI version and earlier will not provide linear aperture when controlled from the camera body.
I have the 135mm f/2.8 AIS, and there is not anything to complain about with respect to performance. I include an example posted here before, on the AW1 via the FT-1 adapter. The AW1 has a higher pixel density than the D800. Compared to the 105mm f/2.5 which I also have, it has different characteristic with respect to background rendering, so their use is complementary. However if I had to choose which one to get first it is hard to get around the 105mm f/2.5.
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p1268827347.jpg)
135 mm f/2.8 AIS (chipped) @ f/6.3 on NIKON 1 AW1, 1/1250, ISO 400.
-
Never had any problems with Ebay. The seller-system of Ebay combined with the guarantees with Pay Pal works very good.
A recent example with the 135/2.8 Ai on the D800E @ 2.8
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4165/34590172552_88900dc181_o.jpg)
Df 135mm f/2.8 ai
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4165/34590172552_88900dc181_o.jpg)
Df 135mm f/2.8 ai
This resembles what I know my 135mm 2.8 AI to be capable of.
-
I have the 135mm f/2.8 AIS, and there is not anything to complain about with respect to performance. I include an example posted here before, on the AW1 via the FT-1 adapter. The AW1 has a higher pixel density than the D800. Compared to the 105mm f/2.5 which I also have, it has different characteristic with respect to background rendering, so their use is complementary. However if I had to choose which one to get first it is hard to get around the 105mm f/2.5.
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p1268827347.jpg)
135 mm f/2.8 AIS (chipped) @ f/6.3 on NIKON 1 AW1, 1/1250, ISO 400.
Yes, that is good.
It would be interesting to see an example at max aperture 2.8 which is the acid test for any fast lens. In my experience, the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AI is not "bad" in any way, but it lacks that brilliance of others in the same series.
-
Yes, that is good.
It would be interesting to see an example at max aperture 2.8 which is the acid test for any fast lens. In my experience, the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AI is not "bad" in any way, but it lacks that brilliance of others in the same series.
The photo I posted is at f/2.8
-
WoW, lot of replies.
Thanks fot that. I have a lot to read.
First I will free Some money by selling orher stuff and see what comes on my path 24 or 105 or 135. About this I have to think.
Thanks again and have great weekend :)
-
The suggestion is made the 135/2.8 is a bad lens, which it isn't. It is a great lens, and very compact ! Of course it is a little bit less sharper (if that is the only goal) than a brilliant lens like the 105/2.5 but it has it's own merits, what Bjørn also indicated. I like the lens for back up, because it is easy to take with you if you need some tele-work.
At f/4 onwards it's is pretty sharp, and the bokeh is actually very good at f/2.8. The bit of 'softness' wide open works great for portraits.
I made no suggestion the 135/2.8 is a bad lens. It's just not as good as the other lenses mentioned for sharpness, especially off-center.
-
I own both the 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8. I find nothing to complain about with either. Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights, Tale No.5 said regarding the 105/2.5 AI...
The lens also has characteristics of spherical aberration and coma. Basically close-range aberration variation is small, but at portrait distances the correction for aberration seems to be slightly insufficient. The insufficiency as far as spherical aberration in particular is what makes defocus background appeared beautiful. The aberration balance has been calculated carefully for use in portraits. When the aperture is open contrast is good, and delineation is soft.
In my tests of three of the Xenotar (modified Gauss) the three lenses achieved their sweet spot a little later than other Nikkor primes. Judging mostly on the center I called it at f/5.6. This agrees with 1001 and 1, Tale 5 and also with David Ruether who says of both the 105/2.5 Xenotar and 135/2.8 (Compact, AI, AIS, Maybe K), "performance declines at wide stops near minimum focus (both conditions together), otherwise this lens is excellent even wide open"
Since the 135/2.8 is a natural lens to use for portraits, tight head shots, it's quite possible that the same design philosophy of slightly soft at wide apertures and portrait distance informed the design of the 135/2.8. I've meant to test this once I got a D800 but I just shoot with the 135/2.8 and like it.
I prefer the 105/2.5 as I like the perspective I get better with 105 than 135. When the framing is the same I'll be standing a little closer and the closer distance produces the perspective. I like to say a lens "suggests" a perspective.
I don't find any bad habits with either my 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS. For focusing with live view I wish I hadn't give my 105/2.5 AI to pay a debt. After testing three 105/2.5 Xenotar types, N-C, AI and AIS I intended to keep both the AI and AIS. The N-C was sold but not delivered.
I'll throw one more lens in the discussion: the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor. In my tests years ago my 105/2.8 AIS was right there with my 105/2.5(s) and it focuses down to 1:2 (half life size) so it can do double duty as a portrait and micro lens. With the PN-11 it achieves 1:1. With its CRC design it's probably wise to use a PK-12 and then PK-13 to achieve magnification ratio above 1:2 and until near 1:1 keeping the focus ring as near to minimum focus distance as possible.
Regarding the built in lens hoods on the 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS I've never had a problem with them. They are so wobbly, so bad that I've always used an HS-8 or HS-14 lens hood which offers better protection from stray light anyway.
I remember the first time I looked through a 105/2.5 Nikkor-P at Gayson's Camera. It just looked right. I immediately traded a 135/2.8 Nikkor-Q. The owner took the trade, 1 for 1. I'd owned the 135 for less than 24 hours. My preference for focal length is 105mm over 135mm.
That's my 2 cents on the subject...
Dave Hartman
-
Thanks for your analysis, David. I agree with your findings.
I recently was able to get a copy of the 105/2.8 Ai-S Micro (they are not very often on Ebay and always pretty expensive) and am amazed by it's results, but I need some further work-out with the lens.
I love the rendering of this daisy:
D600 - 105/2.8 at 2.8
-
Posted in Spring 2017
But also 105/2.8 at 2.8
(http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5430.0;attach=25764;image)
-
This one I didn't think about. Very interesting because one of the subjects is macro.
The bokeh looks very nice.
1:2 ratio is a good enough for me.
One more lens to think about :)
-
Posted in Spring 2017
But also 105/2.8 at 2.8
(http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5430.0;attach=25764;image)
Beautiful image John. I'm especially impressed you shot this at 2.8, you did an excellent job at lining up the focus plane with the subject - the DoF must have been very thin!
And I agree, the AIS 105/2.8 micro is a good lens.
-
The 105/2.8 AIS Micro also has the distinction of probably being at least as good, if not better, at long distances than up close.
The lens is less easy to do maintenance on (internal cleaning, lubrication, alignment) than its predecessor 105/4 due to a more complex optical design and much more vulnerable to external impact. Some samples I have examined have had very stiff focusing others are literally 'sweating' grease; thus ensure you try it before the final purchase decision is taken.
As this was the first 105 Micro with CRC, it has some quirks once you combine it with the recommended PN-11 extension tube to go further than the 1:2 offered by the naked lens. With extension added CRC is no longer effective in the near range and Nikon recommends you stop down quite a bit extra to overcome this problem. In fact, the lens has additional engravings to indicate the apertures one ought to stop down to with the PN-11. As the lens + PN-11 goes toward the new limit of 1:0.88, you can open up more though.
-
Beautiful image John. I'm especially impressed you shot this at 2.8, you did an excellent job at lining up the focus plane with the subject - the DoF must have been very thin!
And I agree, the AIS 105/2.8 micro is a good lens.
Thanks Roland. DoF is a not as thin as many other 'macro' lenses. To my surprise it has a very good handling wide open despite being a 'fast' macro lens.
Thanks for extra information, Bjørn. I think the use of 3T of 4T is also a possibility. Do you have experience with that combination?
-
Made some progress already, yesterday picked up a Micro-nikkor 105mm 2.8 with lens shade.
Is in really very good condition and focussing moves smooth all over the track.
I made some pictures with it but my film is not yet full so to share them will take a few days at least.
Now only a wide angle lens.
I found a 28mm 2.8 AI lens in nearly mint condition.
what is a reasonable price for this?
-
EDIT: Oops, just saw your location of The Netherlands. FYI only...
28/2.8 Ai, in the USA in $USD: Too much: $150+, OK price: $125, Good price: $90, a 'steal': $50.
(The 28/2.8 AiS is a very different lens that sells for more, because it has higher optical performance).
-
Thanks Keith :-)
-
Made some progress already, yesterday picked up a Micro-nikkor 105mm 2.8 with lens shade.
Is in really very good condition and focussing moves smooth all over the track.
I made some pictures with it but my film is not yet full so to share them will take a few days at least.
Now only a wide angle lens.
I found a 28mm 2.8 AI lens in nearly mint condition.
what is a reasonable price for this?
I owned the 28mm f2,8 Ai, and even though it's not a bad lens as such (low distortion, not much vignetting, good sharpness) it is not a spectacular lens in any regard either. (picked mine up for EUR 100)
The 28mm f2,8 Ai-S focuses to 0,2m instead of 0,3m which is significant in that it makes the Ai-S lens a potential lens to shoot close ups with, creating a very interesting perspective and nice OoF rendering. (normally costs around EUR 200)
I also bought a 28mm f2 Nikkor-N.C which I liked a lot better then the 28mm f2,8 Ai because of it's sharpness and rendering. The extra stop makes more of a difference then suggested. (paid EUR 100 for a seriously beaten up version)
Next I picked up a 24mm f2,8 Nikkor-N.C (EUR 150) and, after taking it out for photos, sold all the 28mm lenses. Personally I liked the 24mm perspective far better then 28. Ideally I would own a 35mm as well, but I kidn of skip that bit and move from wide straight to standard lenses) The 24mm f2,8 Nikkor-N.C is as Bjorn describes. I find mine best at f5,6 or f8