Nikkor 28-50mm f/3.5 Ai-S

[Fons Baerken]

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.

[Fons Baerken]

If i recollect it may have been this

[richardHaw]

terrible distortion at 28mm but otherwise a very nice lens 

[John Geerts]

Distortion at 28mm?   Here an image at 28mm.

[John Geerts]

And 28mm at f/8  Love the colours.

[Fons Baerken]

Natuurmuseum Brabant, where is this John?

'Guess 'ah could have answered this myself, http://www.natuurmuseumbrabant.nl

[John Geerts]

Yes, Tilburg, Fons

[Akira]

That is super, Fons!

[richardHaw]

good for you, mine looks worse than that 
can't find the picture, though 

[JKoerner007]

Very nice images, Fons and John

[JKoerner007]

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights - 25-50mm f/4.0 AIs

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

[John Geerts]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

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 ...

[Bill De Jager]

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.

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.

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?

[JKoerner007]

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.