Nikkor 28-50mm f/3.5 Ai-S

[David H. Hartman]

Stiff focus may be relieved by adding a tiny drop of Nyoil to the helicoid with an insulin syringe and working it in very well. If necessary add a second and work it in very well. Do NOT over do it!

I learned this from a camera repairman friend.

Dave

[Harald]

Hi,

found a very cheap copy of the 28-45: Flares a lot, but is build like a tank and sharp. Love it.

Harald

[JJChan]

the 25-50mm is too big for my taste. there was one being sold really cheap yesterday, i was tempted but I skipped.

Richard
The 25-50mm is larger but it really is a serious lens, another class completely in terms of sharpness and APO-like lack of CA

A few walk around from the 28-50 - mainly snapshots around Vancouver

JJ

[Harald]

Click for a big version: 28-45@28mm f11

[longzoom]

Hi,

found a very cheap copy of the 28-45: Flares a lot, but is build like a tank and sharp. Love it.

Harald

             That's why I am staying with Tamron 20-40 - flared, too, but AF is dead-end, with better contrast/color ratio, than any of them above. So far I am OK, but, if any needs, I'll go for the new Tamron 15-30. Good luck!  LZ

[richardHaw]

the pictures look more than acceptable for what i intend to use it for

be careful with injecting stuff into the helicoids as this will react with the grease and there is a huge likelihood that the grease will harden after a period of time. 
these lenses end up cheap on yahoo auctions and find their way to my collection

the 20-40 tamron is legendary.

[Fons Baerken]

25-50mm f/4 @f/11 on D3

[JJChan]

Sensational photo Fons!

[Chip Chipowski]

So there is a 28-50, a 25-50, and a 28-45?? 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

All of them exist.

The first wide-angle zoom was the 28-45/4.5, later to be refined as the 25-50/4. The 28-50/3.5 is the youngest of them, made to provide a cheaper and smaller alternative.

[David H. Hartman]

Richard,

I'll toss out the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkor as an alternative to the original lens in question. It has one hybrid aspheric element. It's quite well made as compared to many AF lenses. It has quite reasonable flare and ghost for it's era with 8 elements in 7 groups. It's decent wide open and very nice one stop down. It's small and unobtrusive. I use it with a Nikon HN-3 hood and no filter for protection. I use a Tupperware #G tumbler cap on the HN-3.  I own two of them. The first cost $84.00 USD from KEH.com.

Best,

Dave

---

I own a 25-50/4.0 AIS and like the lens very much. The only down side is the 90 degree throw on the focus ring. The 25-50/4.0 AI has the same short throw which makes manual focusing more difficult.

[Bill De Jager]

My previous film-era wide-angle zooms were the manual focus 25-50mm f/4 and the autofocus 20-35 f/2.8.  The former was a joy to use with film but is quite large and heavy.  The latter is better as an autofocus lens, and it's quite poor in the outer reaches of a photo when shot at f/2.8.

While I've been using only digital for the past 5 years, I've kept my old film cameras and lenses and I still expect to use them once in a while.  While I haven't actually done this yet , I went ahead and bought a copy of the Nikkor 28-50 f/3.5 for its small size and decent photographic quality, with the expectation that it could be a reasonable walkabout lens.  I could always throw in my Series E 100mm f/2.8 for a very small and lightweight kit.

I went ahead and did some casual test shots - nothing rigorous, all handheld.  I didn't alter colors or saturation directly, but revised exposure, contrast, and highlights as needed to avoid or minimize clipping.  All photos are modestly sharpened.  As always, any negative results may be due to sample variation or user error. 

I found infinity to be quite soft, especially at the wide end.  I'll have to return to that with a tripod and live view and see what I can find out.  This might be sample variation or even wear and tear; my copy has the stiff zoom action others have mentioned.  F/3.5 is not that sharp, but then these were handheld shots on a D7200, with focusing done via the focus dot.  Your results may vary.  One of these days I need to get a Df or Df2. 

Liquidamber styraciflua

_DSC1399 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Closeup

_DSC1396 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Actual pixels from the selected focus point.  The spiny object is a fruit to a botanist and a seed capsule to everyone else.

_DSC1396_center_crop by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Flowers in macro mode.  These flowers always give me fits as the red channel blows out so massively it's hard to fix without serious underexposure.  So please tolerate my processing in which I tried to tame the raging histogram.

_DSC1405 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

_DSC1407 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Actual pixels; I tried to focus on the center of the flower, and the insect took off before I could catch it on the flower.

_DSC1407_center_crop by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

At 28mm

_DSC1412 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Massively underexposed in post for fun

_DSC1418 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

[richardHaw]

Nice!
I saw a sample and it was as sharp as I wanted wide-open. unfortunately, I wasnt in the mood to throw ￥7,500 away for that at that moment. I may get back to it as I recognise that it is an exceptional copy despite the dusts inside. Ric.

[Roland Vink]

Quite a nice little lens if you can live with the limited zoom range - I tend to think of it as a flexible 35!
Just don't point it into the sun - lots of coloured blobs all over your image!

[Bill De Jager]

And some more...

A Tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus, Eucalyptus globulus

_DSC1421 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Actual pixel crop

_DSC1421_center_crop by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Shot into a little bit of sun

_DSC1423 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Fly on a tree, cropped

_DSC1428 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Actual pixels near center of original photo

_DSC1428_fly_crop by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Howard McMinn manzanita, Arctostaphylos densiflora "Howard McMinn"

_DSC1441 by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Actual pixels

_DSC1441_twig_crop by Bill de Jager, on Flickr