The classic Nikkors: 28 mm f/2

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I'd keep both.  They are different in their various strengths and weaknesses, and neither costs much.

That seems to me to be the wisest choice.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 28/2 and f/2.8 models have each their strong and weaker sides, and serve different purposes. Both can easily co-exist in the photographer's tool box.

I have an on-off relationship with both of them, meaning I use them intensively a period of time, then move on to other wide lenses, then the cycle repeats itself. Although the f/2.8 is the better lens for close-up work, neither lens is a flat-field design like a Micro-Nikkor. That can confer an advantage sometimes, other times it is a drawback. The shooting conditions and aims decide which alternative it is.

I pulled a few randomly selected shots with either of the 28 (f/2, f/2.8 ) lenses from my archive. These optics are quite versatile in my view. Each of them is CPU-modified so interfaces gracefully with any of my many F-mount cameras.

[JKoerner007]

Why would you replace the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS with the Nikkor 28mm 2.0 AIS? Is the latter superior to the former in other ways than by virtue of its larger aperture?

There is no qualitative reason; I am just becoming somewhat of a snob, and don't like rubber focus rings.

If anything, the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS is smaller, lighter, allows closer-focus distance, and is probably the better lens (albeit, not by much).

The difference is, in shooting Zeiss classics, I am becoming enamored with all-metal lenses and focus rings. They just feel better to use and rubber focus rings are becoming kind of a turn-off.

I wouldn't replace my f/2.8 28mm AI-S with an f/2 AI-S, but with the pre-AI f/2 version, purely for aesthetic, all-metal snobbery.

[BEZ]

I pulled a few randomly selected shots with either of the 28 (f/2, f/2.8 ) lenses from my archive. These optics are quite versatile in my view. Each of them is CPU-modified so interfaces gracefully with any of my many F-mount cameras.

The image quality of all four photographs is impressive, testament to the lenses in question.

But I want to comment on the "cityscape" image  .....it grabbed my attention and won't let go. An image that gives me great pleasure to view. And a new glimpse into the thoughts of a talented (Great) photographer. One of those I wish I had taken photographs.

Cheers

[pluton]

We each have our personal preferences;  I prefer handling the rubber focusing grips, though the all-metal lenses look cool and work fine.  My only concern with the rubber rings would be longevity before disintegration.  Luckily, the old Nikon rubber from the 1970's has proved to be long lasting.
On the first model 28/2 Nikkor-N, be prepared for a noticeable yellowish color tint compared to the subsequent models.  My copy, when I had it, was very sharp.

[JKoerner007]

We each have our personal preferences;  I prefer handling the rubber focusing grips, though the all-metal lenses look cool and work fine.  My only concern with the rubber rings would be longevity before disintegration.  Luckily, the old Nikon rubber from the 1970's has proved to be long lasting.
On the first model 28/2 Nikkor-N, be prepared for a noticeable yellowish color tint compared to the subsequent models.  My copy, when I had it, was very sharp.

Thanks for the tip.

I bought 5 different AI-S zooms ... and every single one of them "rendered yellow" as well. Got rid of them all for this.

I eventually found one zoom (the second 28-50 I bought) that renders true and like my other AI-Ses.

So, good point, and I will definitely watch for this.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

BEZ: thanks. One of those scenes that suddenly manifests itself. Just shoot and hope for the best. The photographer becomes an automated device, possibly because the scene is already envisioned subconsciously. You act on reflexes.

As to the rubber focusing rings, they are pretty long lasting and should they wear out, easy to replace. A well designed (non-smooth)  rubber focusing ring ensures a better grip than the all-metal ones if you work in cold weather using gloves.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

As to the rubber focusing rings, they are pretty long lasting and should they wear out, easy to replace. A well designed (non-smooth)  rubber focusing ring ensures a better grip than the all-metal ones if you work in cold weather using gloves.

If the rubber is really classic rubber (caoutchouc) and not neoprene or a similar long lasting substance, I would say that it is not well designed - at least not when it comes to material. Caoutchouc inevitably oxidizes and breaks down in light - as we all know.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

There is no qualitative reason; I am just becoming somewhat of a snob, and don't like rubber focus rings.

If anything, the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS is smaller, lighter, allows closer-focus distance, and is probably the better lens (albeit, not by much).

It seems to me that the Nikkor 28/2.0 AI/S is plagued with sample variation or perhaps is so susceptible to being destroyed by bumps and falls that it is difficult to find a good sample. I have seen three different ones, and one is brilliant whereas the other two were dismally mushy in the periphery and a long way towards the center. I have more confidence in the 28/2.8 AI/S.

The following two are made by me with the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS on a D750. In both cases the aperture was 5.6.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Per Inge: you read too literally; all "rubber" on the focusing collars of the Nikkors has been synthetic (neoprene etc.) for many decades.

By the way, the CRC of the f/2.8 AIS is also of the front type, in common with the f/2.

[JKoerner007]

It seems to me that the Nikkor 28/2.0 AI/S is plagued with sample variation or perhaps is so susceptible to being destroyed by bumps and falls that it is difficult to find a good sample. I have seen three different ones, and one is brilliant whereas the other two were dismally mushy in the periphery and a long way towards the center. I have more confidence in the 28/2.8 AI/S.

The following two are made by me with the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS on a D750. In both cases the aperture was 5.6.

I hear you. I know my 28 AI-S is a good copy, it has proven itself both properly-oriented, and reversed, stunningly-sharp, absolutely-superb color.

Maybe I should just keep it ... and hope I get a nice 28 f/2 pre-AI for fun ... before I let the known quantity go.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Per Inge: you read too literally; all "rubber" on the focusing collars of the Nikkors has been synthetic (neoprene etc.) for many decades.

By the way, the CRC of the f/2.8 AIS is also of the front type, in common with the f/2.

I did not truly assume that caoutchouc was used, since it has a characteristic smell - the smell of eventual oxidation, breakdown and disintegration. I have seen far too many O-rings, armorings and caoutchouc rubber eyecups to accept that material in instruments that are meant to last more than a year.

But I assumed - rightly as it turned out - that the CRC of the 28/2.8 AIS was of the front version. The question still remains why two of three Nikkor 28/2.0 I have tried have shown severe quality problems whereas I have not seen anything of the sort in two examined copies of the 28/2.8. Also, granted that the theory that damage to the CRC group is correct the question is whether or not the damage is repairable.

[pluton]

Here's a comparison of two different Nikkor 28/2.8 Ais lenses:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_2.html

[Bjørn Rørslett]

...
But I assumed - rightly as it turned out - that the CRC of the 28/2.8 AIS was of the front version. The question still remains why two of three Nikkor 28/2.0 I have tried have shown severe quality problems whereas I have not seen anything of the sort in two examined copies of the 28/2.8. Also, granted that the theory that damage to the CRC group is correct the question is whether or not the damage is repairable.

The first sample I had of the 28/2.8 AIS had to be returned due to massive decentering originating with the front CRC group. The next sample was is very good to excellent for close-ups, but the f/2 is better at distance.

[Øivind Tøien]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, my 28mm f/2.8 AIS has taken several serious drops without any apparent harm, still performing very well. I recently had the opportunity to try out a 24mm f/2. The construction somehow felt flimsy compared to my 28mm f/2.8 AIS, and the edge performance was very poor at infinity.