NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Zang on May 25, 2020, 05:51:34
-
Hi all,
The pictures were taken under the same lighting condition and similar aperture setting. The lighting was incident from a ceiling lamp. No post processing, just slight white balance adjustment. Which one does your vote go to?
Cheers,
Zang
-
Perspective is different and I assume so are the respective focal lengths.
The first image is much more pleasing to my eye.
-
First one for me.
But the 2nd image is a bit more challenging for the lens as there are white bagground which causes some blue/cyan color cast.
-
If you want to shoot tight portraits like these with the new lens, then the first one is the better choice. If you want to shoot something else, then the jury is still out.
-
number one.
-
Limited to this particular comparison, I would throw in yet another vote for the first one.
However, I don't think this comparison alone is enough to choose between the lenses. The wider lens for the second image could be better suited for the environmental portraits.
-
#1 is the better image for me too. I am however unable to tell the "better lens": if your purpose is close-up shots of people, the second lens can be excluded (distance too close because FL too short) unless you are happy with cropping. I concur with Akira's remark.
-
white balance depends on scene colors. The first photo is blue in the BG so more orange in the face = more pleasing skin tones ... to judge lenses you need the SAME SCENE!!!
-
Thanks all!
Good observation, Frank. The second one was taken about 1 hour later (after I cut the hair for the son :) ). The blueish floor in the first one came from the late daylight projection from the window. The light affected the floor only, though. The person's face was lit by the ceiling lamp only, I was sure.
The two lenses have the same focal length. I moved around a bit so the perspective may seem to be different. The lighting was pretty difficult and the lamp was quite dark. I needed to lean my hand on another chair to prevent shaking. In 100% crop, the first picture is a bit shaken when the second one looks OK. I'll probably repeat the test with more reliable set up and closer lighting conditions.
However, your votes are so far aligned with mine what is "shocking truth" to me :) The first lens edges the second in almost every situation. The more difficult lighting, the bigger difference you'll see. You may be curious about what lenses were used. The first one is $40 Nikkor 28mm f3.5 (recently overhauled by me) shot wide open at f3.5. The second one is the "million dollar" Contax Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 bought brand new in 90's, shot at f4 :)
Cheers,
Zang
-
Number 1 too.
Warmer tones and more pleasant background.
It's not exactly the same point of view, I guess ?
-
Number 1 too.
Warmer tones and more pleasant background.
It's not exactly the same point of view, I guess ?
No, these were taken handheld one hour one after another :)
Cheers,
Zang
-
The 28/3.5 is not a bad lens. Probably many was produced so easy to find on the used market.
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0012/index.htm
I found it also good reversed for macro work.
-
Just found one in my drawer, will certainly try it out on the Z6 or Df, as it is not Ai converted :)
-
Just found one in my drawer, will certainly try it out on the Z6 or Df, as it is not Ai converted :)
Mine is the AIS one. Not sure if it is any better than the earlier versions.
-
I have the Nikkor-H, but according to Rolands page it should have the same optical formula, sans coating ;)
-
The Nikkor-H 28/3.5 optics are found in the Nikkor-H.C version (with multicoating) and had a minor tweak in the late pre-AI K/New Nikkor version to improve performance at close range (it focuses to 0.3m compared to 0.6m for the older versions). The AI and AIS versions have an all-new optical design with a much smaller front element and larger rear element, although it remains a 6-element design and the arrangement of concave and convex lenses is similar to the original version.
The original Nikkor-H is a pretty good lens, especially when you consider it was designed in the early 1960s and was the first successful wide (wider than 35mm) lens for SLR cameras. The main thing to watch is that the large front element and wide angle of view means it vignettes very easily - only the thinnest filters should be used.
I have used the AI 28/3.5 a little, my impression is that it also performs quite well as you should expect from a newer design, but my shooting was mainly restricted to landscape shots with the lens stopped well down.
-
Thanks Roland. You keep impress with your detail knowledge.
I consider getting 28mm f2.8 AIS but I started hearing complains about its far distance performance. The majority of the rest compare it to flying to the moon, though :) In the meantime, I do have f3.5 to play with. I'll get f2.8 only if I find a good deal.
Cheers,
Zang
-
I think the AIS 28/2.8 is fine at far distances when stopped down, but I am sure there are other lenses which perform better at wide apertures.
-
Thanks Roland. You keep impress with your detail knowledge.
I consider getting 28mm f2.8 AIS but I started hearing complains about its far distance performance. The majority of the rest compare it to flying to the moon, though :) In the meantime, I do have f3.5 to play with. I'll get f2.8 only if I find a good deal.
Cheers,
Zang
The 2.0/28 Nikkor family is another class of lens. Reliable quality.
-
The 2.0/28 Nikkor family is another class of lens. Reliable quality.
That opinion is more consistent among user than those for 2.8. However, 2.0 is pretty rare and the price is usually high. Sometimes, price for 2.0 is very close to 1.8G what makes little sense.
Cheers,
Zang
-
the rendering of the modern lens is very different.
-
the rendering of the modern lens is very different.
In that regard, you are right!
-
I think the AIS 28/2.8 is fine at far distances when stopped down, but I am sure there are other lenses which perform better at wide apertures.
I know the question is too generic, but all in all do you think the difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is worth the effort of getting the later one?
-
I have an emotional affection for the older f/3.5 lenses. There is an old time feel to them ergonomically as well as rendering style wise. They are so well made: no rubber, no plastic just pure metal and glass and tar (this black glue stuff I mean) ... they feel so pure and well crafted...
-
I have an emotional affection for the older f/3.5 lenses. There is an old time feel to them ergonomically as well as rendering style wise. They are so well made: no rubber, no plastic just pure metal and glass and tar (this black glue stuff I mean) ... they feel so pure and well crafted...
I know... I miss my little VW Golf and its manual gear shift so much :)
-
I know the question is too generic, but all in all do you think the difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is worth the effort of getting the later one?
The AIS 28/2.8 focuses much closer - down to 0.2m, compared to 0.25m for the AIS 28/2, 0.3m for most other 28mm models, and 0.6m for the old Nikkor-H(C). The AIS 28/2.8 will give magnification of 1:3.9 at close focus, so you could almost consider it a wideangle macro. If you mostly shoot landscapes the closeup performance won't be of much importance, but the ability to focus close does make the lens more versatile.
The AIS 28/2.8 also has very low geometric distortion - straight lines are rendered straight right to the edge of the frame. The AI 28/2.8 is similar, it has a similar optical design but without close range correction (CRC), so it does not focus as close or perform as well at close range. All the other 28mm lenses have some barrel distortion which could make them less suitable for architecture or seascapes.
-
The AIS 28/2.8 focuses much closer...
Thanks Roland. Maybe, I'll find someone who complains about autofocus not working on their 28mm/2.8 AIS :)
-
The AI 28/2.8 is similar, it has a similar optical design but without close range correction (CRC), so it does not focus as close or perform as well at close range. All the other 28mm lenses have some barrel distortion which could make them less suitable for architecture or seascapes.
Not really similar design, Roland :
Ai Nikkor: 7 elements in 7 groups. Nikon Integrated multicoating (NIC). Conventional design, no CRC.
Ais : 8 elements in 8 groups. CRC close range correction.
I had both and I think the Ais is the better one. Ai is not a bad lens, but not as good at 2,8 to 5,6 and not so evenly performant as the Ais.
-
Not really similar design, Roland :
Ai Nikkor: 7 elements in 7 groups. Nikon Integrated multicoating (NIC). Conventional design, no CRC.
Ais : 8 elements in 8 groups. CRC close range correction.
It depends on what you mean by similar :o
Look at the optical design of the two lenses (AI top, AIS bottom) - the arrangement of element is very similar except the AI has one thick element in the centre, while in the AIS version it is replaced with two smaller elements, with CRC applied across the gap. While they are clearly different designs I regard the AIS as a more developed version of the AI.
AI 28mm 1:2.8
(https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/28mmf28preAIopt.gif)
AIS 28mm 1:2.8
(https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0057/img/img1.jpg)
-
...Ais is the better one. Ai is not a bad lens, but not as good at 2,8 to 5,6 and not so evenly performant as the Ais.
Is it true at all distances?
I have 24mm f2.8 AIS and when it outperforms other ordinary lenses (like 35mm f2.8 ) up to 3 meters or so but the further the object is, the smaller the differences are (if at all).
-
Assuming my copies of the 28/2.8 AiS and the 28/2.8 Ai are exemplary, I have noticed that the earlier Ai exhibits a much more pronounced decline in sharpness as you look from the center to the edge of the 24x36 frame, compared to the relatively even performance of the AiS model. This is evident at all object distances, including infinity focus. Stopping down helps, but does not eliminate the difference.
If even side-to-side sharpness is not at issue, I prefer the color/contrast rendering of the Ai model.