NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: whatdoineed2do on January 04, 2018, 11:38:48
-
I've been looking for a 28mm for environmental portraiture for a while and have narrowed my search to the 28mm MF primes: f/2 AI/AIS or f/2.8 AIS (0.2MFD).
I would appreciate opinions from experienced users for any recommendation of either lens with the view that this will be used for reasonably close (think environmental portraiture/photojounalism) - med distances and probably wideopen to f/4, so infinity or extreme corner sharpness are less of a concern - this will be on a D800.
The f/2 has the extra stop but how does it compare to the f/2.8 AIS at f/2.8 and f/4? Is there any noticable sample variations that I should be concerned?
I already have the 24-70 f/2.8G (old version) - how do the old timers stack up against this zoom?
Many thanks
-
Either lens will do a good service for your designated purposes. I tend to recommend the 28/2 unless you specifically expect doing lots of close-ups. The reason being of course the faster lens can be opened up another stop compared to its sibling and sometimes that is exactly the medicine you need to get the shot.
Do be aware of the potential misalignment from knocks and bumps to the front part of these lenses. They both have CRC implemented in the front and that makes them more vulnerable to ill effects of rough handling.
-
How would the MF lenses compare against the 24-70mm at the same length at f/2.8 and f/4?
The 28mm primes would be a nice substitute for the heavy zoom but only if the IQ is on par or better
-
Sample variation and, as Bjørn notes, undetected internal damage are possibilities to watch out for in any used lens.
My copy of the 28/2.8 Ais is amazingly sharp, center to edge, and fully useable at f/2.8. Also features a fairly flat field of focus at wide open.
I haven't had the 28/2 since film, so I can't comment on it's sharpness on modern digital camera applications.
Based on my sample of the 24-70/2.8G (used one for a year), for 'sharpness' I'd pick the 28/2.8 Ais at f/2.8 vs. the 24-70/2.8G at f/2.8.
The 28/2 will show a bit more barrel distortion in the medium-close focus range than the 28/2.8 Ais.
-
The 28/2 is more versatile, as Bjørn states. The f/2 is definitely the advantage over the other and the zooms. On top of that, the 28/2 is very usable in the sun as it is pretty flare resistant. Both manual lenses are relatively easy to focus.
-
Both lenses are very good and sharp.
I prefer the f/2 AI although it is 120 gr heavier. Just subjective opinion.
An older version, the 28mm f/2 nikkor N auto (with AI kit conversion) is sharp too.
Francis.
-
Regarding the 28 f2.8 AiS I have one with a rattling noise, is that something that is easy to correct. It seems to make ok images however.
-
A rattling noise might indicate the front CRC group has worked itself looser over time. If the problem gets worse, let a qualified repair technician have a look.
-
I was afraid, that was the problem, may consider the cost vs getting an other sample ???
-
These lenses should be pretty easy to get fresh samples of, as they were produced and sold in large numbers.
-
I can confirm that the CRC of this lens can be a bit flimsy :o :o :o
as for the 28/2.8 Ai-S, my only complaint for that lens is that its flare resistance is a bit lacking in my opinion. the older non-Ai-S seems to be better in this regard.
no experience of the f/2, but it gains an extra stop which is useful. ::)
-
I can confirm that the CRC of this lens can be a bit flimsy :o :o :o
as for the 28/2.8 Ai-S, my only complaint for that lens is that its flare resistance is a bit lacking in my opinion. the older non-Ai-S seems to be better in this regard.
no experience of the f/2, but it gains an extra stop which is useful. ::)
Any idea off how complicated it is to rectify the problem? Can it be done by only take the front of?
-
Any idea off how complicated it is to rectify the problem? Can it be done by only take the front of?
Hello, Bent.
I am not sure. but I recall having a little bit of a hard time with this lens. It's not super difficult, you just need to pay more attention :o :o :o
I have been meaning to write an article for this lens for a long time. it looks like I will write an this week for the Nikkormat EL so I will probably write one this coming February.
-
Hi Richard
Will look forward to it, I can easily wait, have other lenses ;)
-
Richard, I am also looking forward to your Nikkormat EL article (even though I am more partial to its purely mechanical Nikkormat cousins).
(Off topic: I am also partial to Nena. ;D)
-
I was afraid, that was the problem, may consider the cost vs getting an other sample ???
These lenses - as in this case the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS - do have an optical as well as mechanical quality that justifies the expense of a repair. Even though repair is relatively costly, you get a high-quality lens which is not likely to require more maintenance for a very long time, if at all.
-
the dreaded CRC unit of this lens :o :o :o
-
And how to get into it?
The iris doesn’t look good :o
-
Just to bring some closure (for myself) for my original question. I ended up finding a 28mm f/2.8 AIS, serial 76xxxxx which was in good mechanical order and thanks to Rich Haw's most recent repair guide I managed to clean up the rear 3 elements. So, to answer my own question - how's this (sample) for sharpness in the f/2.8 - f/4 range for environmental portraits?
My initial experiments (wide open) suggests the 24-70mm beats the 28mm AIS in terms of sharpness but the MF lens is not overly embarrassed.
Close focus at 0.2m is quite sharp and this trend appears true for me all the way up to about 1m-1.5m, where after this distance I'm finding getting eyes in the same level of sharp focus difficult as say, at 0.7m: tripods / live view + static objects don't seem to help too much but this could be user error.
Going further out towards infinity details seem to get a little mushy wide open but I appreciate this probably isn't a typical use case - going down one stop to f/4 seems to help tremendously.
Some final observations - this copy seems to have an ever so slightly clunk in the front of the barrel when I quickly shift lens pointed down to up - I presume it's the CRC. The other thing I noticed was the front element rotates as I focus but I believe this is normal operation for the CRC. The filter ring is fixed though so no problems for circular polarisers.
I'd be interested to hear if these experiences are similar to long term users of this lens (ignore the confirmation bias in the loaded question)
-
The AI-S 28/2.8 (also 28/2 and 20/2.8 ) all have CRC operating on the front group of elements. The way they are built means the front element rotates within a fixed filter ring. As you focus closer you will see a small gap open up between the beauty ring and the front element, this is the CRC in operation. On the 24/2.8 and 35/1.4 the CRC operates on the rear group instead. On the AI-S 55/2.8 micro neither the front or rear groups rotates. These are just differences in mechanical design, the effect is the same - the distance between the front and rear groups changes as you focus to maintain better correction through the focus range. There is some evidence that the front CRC designs are more easily damaged by knocks, and the gap at the front might be an opening for dust?
My AI-S 28/2.8 has no noticeable "clunk" when tipping the lens up or down, apart from some slight rattling of the aperture stop-down mechanism. The front and rear CRC groups should be held reasonably tightly, any looseness would mean some elements may be displaced resulting in incorrect spacing or going out of alignment, which could affect performance.
I'm not sure if I ever shot mine wide open, I usually stop down for DoF. My sample seems reasonably sharp at far distances, but I haven't used it much recently as I have other lenses with better flare resistance.
-
My initial experiments (wide open) suggests the 24-70mm beats the 28mm AIS in terms of sharpness but the MF lens is not overly embarrassed.
Doubtless because the AF of the former nailed the focus, while your manual effort did not.
Try again with a tripod + Live View and the results will be much different.
99% of the time people who complain about manual lenses do so because they failed to use best practice.
FYI, it is easier to focus with the 28mm on closer objects (because you can see the details in the viewfinder) ... while the opposite is true trying to achieve absolute focus on distant objects.
-
Going further out towards infinity details seem to get a little mushy wide open but I appreciate this probably isn't a typical use case - going down one stop to f/4 seems to help tremendously.
Your observation comports with most users' reported experience of the performance of the 28/2/8 AiS at infinity. This isn't the only wide angle lens that seems to lose contrast on small objects at longer distances. The Zeiss ZF 25/2 lens I've used does something similar.
-
Just found a mint- 28mm/2 AI for an amazing price at the Salvation Army ::)
This lens is incredibly sharp and surprisingly flare resistant. Highly recommended.
I get the feeling my AFD 28mm/1.4 will stay home for now :-[
-
Your observation comports with most users' reported experience of the performance of the 28/2/8 AiS at infinity. This isn't the only wide angle lens that seems to lose contrast on small objects at longer distances. The Zeiss ZF 25/2 lens I've used does something similar.
I am not sure I agree with this description regarding my copy of the 28mm f/2.8 AIS. It shows very little difference in resolution and contrast from just stopped down by 1/3 stop to the performance at f/8 (thus only showing f/3.2 below). I have only used it on a DX sensor so I do not have any data with respect to what happens outside that frame. The light was problematic in these quick captures yesterday on the way to work, sun just outside the frame, which might have reduced the overall contrast. (Shooting against the sun is not its strength, and in particular not in IR. Edit: Also an NC filter was attached during these captures.)
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2741388727.jpg)
NIKON D7100, 28 mm f/2.8 AIS (P)@ f/3.2, 1/1600s, ISO 100
100% crop (open large in new tab) at left side of frame, the lens does not seem to have much problem with the high pixel density of the 24 Mpix DX sensor.
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2741388504.jpg)
Crop NIKON D7100, 28 mm f/2.8 AIS (P) @ f/3.2, 1/1600s, ISO 100
Of course performance close up is nothing to complain about:
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2741388728.jpg)
NIKON D7100 28 mm f/2.8 AIS (P) @ f/8, 1/200s, ISO 100
As noted in another thread, this lens has been through some really bad accidents without taking noticeable harm (rolling down a 4m drop-off with rocky outcrops, dropped from 1.5m onto epoxy coated concrete floor). It does not appear to be any looseness in the CRC mechanism (no clunking sound).
-
Wide open the 28mm f/2.8 AIS certainly doesn't like the sun in frame (unlike the 20mm f/3.5 AI) - but contrast isn't too badly affected in my eyes. Interesting to get sun stars from point light sources wide open!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4675/25335513807_b28ea76941_b.jpg)
although a bit better at f/5.6 but there's still ghosting
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4667/39495608434_787c76ebcc_b.jpg)
no filter on the front of the lens for these images
-
I am not sure I agree with this description regarding my copy of the 28mm f/2.8 AIS. It shows very little difference in resolution and contrast from just stopped down by 1/3 stop to the performance at f/8 (thus only showing f/3.2 below). I have only used it on a DX sensor so I do not have any data with respect to what happens outside that frame. The light was problematic in these quick captures yesterday on the way to work, sun just outside the frame, which might have reduced the overall contrast. (Shooting against the sun is not its strength, and in particular not in IR. Edit: Also an NC filter was attached during these captures.)
The images you chose are challenging, to say the least.
In decent lighting, I've found the 28mm AI-S works just fine ... not like my Zeisses ... but the results are pretty decent.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4773/40921485141_3cc1edf895_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25m6iRg)
San Dimas Canyon Reservoir (https://flic.kr/p/25m6iRg) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4391/36561127853_04ba2e154e_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XGMkxk)
Rainbow Falls (https://flic.kr/p/XGMkxk) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
The 28mm AI-S also does exceptionally-well as a reverse-macro:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4441/36317199134_7b6d4f615b_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Xke92L)
Green Bottle Fly (https://flic.kr/p/Xke92L) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2085/32487639020_6010abeb71_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RuPDef)
Western (aka: Brown) Lynx ♀ (https://flic.kr/p/RuPDef) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
The great thing about this lens is it does 1:4 reproduction ratio @ 8" MFD, properly-oriented, and 2.4:1 reversed.
I am replacing this lens with a Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 Distagon T*, which offers a 1:2 ratio @ 6cm MFD, and gives me 3:1 reversed, but the 28mm offers the advantage of being lighter and more portable, so I will miss it in a way.