Breakfast With Emma- Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. AF-D on the D500

[chambeshi]

Dear Arthur
Great Photos, Sir. All very crisp images, true to form with this zoom :-)

On his lens ratings, Bjorn gives it a 4/5 on the D1 http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html

But the 28-105 appears to have been overtaken by the G (and E lens) Nikkors that perform better on the high resolution sensors of the D800 and D810.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html

But this hypothesis awaits empirical evidence

A possible alternative is the 24-120 f4G VR but it's bigger, heavier and much more costly (but not the older model 24-120!). Older discussion of this comparison

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00DrWH?start=10

and more recent comparison of 28-105 AFD vs 24-120 VR f4G https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2979632?page=2

Here are a few reviews etc of the 28-105 AFD Nikkor

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF28105mm/index.htm

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/115.HTM

This table is most useful for many of us NikonoPhiles

http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_rev_table.html

According to my notes from www searches, the alternative hood that works better is the HK-16, which I have yet to find (!) My personal conclusion is that when one finds a decent copy of this lens, don't let it go 

kind regards

Woody

[ArthurDent]

Woody- Thanks for posting all the info on the lens, some great links there! I especially enjoyed the articles in the throughthefmount site.
Regards,
AD

[David H. Hartman]

If one is looking for sharp photographs using the right aperature, shutter speeds and sometimes forgotten light is important. I like a slightly diffused light from an angle that brings out the texture. For some subjects hash light that brings out texture is great. If the light is flat it doesn't matter how much resolution and acutance a lens offers if the light masks the texture the image will not look sharp. If the lens isn't quite cutting edge anymore if the light accentuates the texture the photograph will look sharp.

With this in mind I feel the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D, AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D and AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D are all good enough as walk around lenses for the D800. I like the discrete size and feel of the first two.

Dave Hartman

Do check for centering issues as I have seen an AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D and AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D with issues. Stopping down can mask the issue so test wide open.

Note that only the D version of the 35-105 has an aspheric element. The other two lenses may have a non-D version with an [hybrid] aspheric element, check Rolland Vink's site.

I'm not sure why I dropped the word "hybrid" above. This technology allowed much higher performance in a kit lens. Roland explains in the next post.

[Roland Vink]

The 28-70/3.5-4.5 originally appeared as non-D, but soon changed to D with no other obvious changes. The 28-105 was D only. These and the AF 35-105 D have hybrid aspheric lenses (plastic moulded on glass), not the more expensive ground or moulded aspheric glass.

The early AF 35-80/4-5.6 D was the second Nikkor (after the 28-70) with a hybrid aspheric element. The zoom range is rather limited and the aperture slow, but I heard it is very good also. Not to be confused with the later 35-80 which has a very plasticy appearance and different all-spherical optical design.

[chambeshi]

If one is looking for sharp photographs using the right aperature, shutter speeds and sometimes forgotten light is important. I like a slightly diffused light from an angle that brings out the texture. For some subjects hash light that brings out texture is great. If the light is flat it doesn't matter how much resolution and acutance a lens offers if the light masks the texture the image will not look sharp. If the lens isn't quite cutting edge anymore if the light accentuates the texture the photograph will look sharp.

With this in mind I feel the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D, AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D and AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D are all good enough as walk around lenses for the D800. I like the discrete size and feel of the first two.

Dave Hartman

Do check for centering issues as I have seen an AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D and AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D with issues. Stopping down can mask the issue so test wide open.

Note that only the D version of the 35-105 has an aspheric element. The other two lenses may have a non-D version with an aspheric element, check Rolland Vink's site.

The 28-70/3.5-4.5 originally appeared as non-D, but soon changed to D with no other obvious changes. The 28-105 was D only. These and the AF 35-105 D have hybrid aspheric lenses (plastic moulded on glass), not the more expensive ground or moulded aspheric glass.

The early AF 35-80/4-5.6 D was the second Nikkor (after the 28-70) with a hybrid aspheric element. The zoom range is rather limited and the aperture slow, but I heard it is very good also. Not to be confused with the later 35-80 which has a very plasticy appearance and different all-spherical optical design.

Yes, i've found that stopping down the 28-105 to f5.6 or f8 is a generally sound tactic, and the dynamic range of modern sensors more than permit this, notably in Nikon's D500

Thank you for these 2 excellent Summaries. They consolidate the state of our knowledge of these important AFD Nikkors. I've taken the liberty of copying both into my notes :-)

[ArthurDent]

Emma's Dad asked me to make some photographs of some of his paintings. I used the 28-105 to make them. I did so using room lighting, a really mixed bag. ISO was 100, f/8 and exposure was around 3 seconds. I used the self timer to eliminate lens shake.

[typestar]

The specified lens hood looks like a funnel. There is an alternate hood that many use. It fits perfectly but offers less protection from stray light. I'll list the model number when I find it.
...
They may not have the bite of some recent lenses and don't have nano coatings but I'm pleased with the performance on my D800.

Hi Dave,  thanykyou for this test.... could you list the number of the alternative lens hood for the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5  -- because you are absolutely right about the origin hood: awfull...

Thankyou very much

[Roland Vink]

The hood for the AFD 28-105 (HB-18) is very wide and shallow so that it does not vignette at the wide 28mm setting. Unfortunately it is not possible to use a narrower petal-type hood (with cut-outs in the corners to prevent vignetting at the short end) because the filter ring turns when zooming, the cut-outs would twist to the wrong position, so the hood has to be a wide circular shape.
A narrower hood is possible if you are shooting on a DX camera, but then the 18-105 or 18-140 is probably a better option.

[typestar]

Unfortunately it is not possible to use a narrower petal-type hood (with cut-outs in the corners to prevent vignetting at the short end) because the filter ring turns when zooming, the cut-outs would twist to the wrong position, so the hood has to be a wide circular shape.

Roland,
thankyou very much for pointing out this --
I thought perhaps a wider - 72 mm -  cheap "vented metal hood" like this
 http://tinyurl.com/vented-curved-metal-hood-72mm (screwed into a 62mm -72 mm step-up ring) could be used -
but this would be the same then..., I think...

best wishes,
christian

[Roland Vink]

Do you have the HB-18 for the 28-105? Nikon hoods are often quite conservative - they are shorter than they could be - so it might be possible to use a hood with the same depth and smaller diameter, or greater depth and same diameter. it would be a matter of trial and error - you could try taping some black card around the rim of the hood to make it deeper, take a few pictures at 28mm to see if you get vignetting. Hopefully that will give you a clue about whether the vented hood would work or not.

If the primary purpose of the hood is to protect the front from physical impact rather than shading, just take the glass out of an old UV filter and screw the empty ring on the lens. If the ring is fairly deep, it will provide a small measure of protection without taking any room in your camera bag. Normally you can see in the viewfinder if flare is getting into your lens, so you can shade the front with your hand or a hat, instead of relying on a hood.

[Frank Fremerey]

First picture is wonderful. The child imitates the behavior of adults to open their mouth if they feed children...

[typestar]

Roland,
thankyou very much for this tipps... I think, my primary purpose of a shade is mostly the function of shading and protect against flare...
As I see written here, is it proofed (?) that the 28-105 mm shows a (special ?) weakness if used in direct sunlight...

Thanykou for all your guidance,

christian

[Roland Vink]

If the sun or other bright light is inside the picture, even the deepest and best hood won't make a difference. And if the lens flares badly there is nothing you can do except to recompose the picture with the sun outside the frame, or use a different lens which does not flare...

[David H. Hartman]

Hi Dave,  thanykyou for this test.... could you list the number of the alternative lens hood for the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5  -- because you are absolutely right about the origin hood: awfull...

Thankyou very much

I think I know where the alternate hood I bought for the 28-195/3.5-4.5D is. I'm not at home now. I'll check when I am. It's not going to be as good as the Nikon designated hood but it will afford some protection from bumps to the front element or filter. A hand can shade the lens and be very effective.

Dave

[Roland Vink]

You could try the HN-22 hood, designed for the AIS 35-70/3.5 and 35-135/3.5-4.5. Since it is designed for a 35mm wideangle, it may be too long for the 28-105 at 28mm and cause vignetting. On the other hand many HN (screw-in) are too short, so they can be screwed on top of a filter and still not cause vignetting. For example, the HN-3 for 35mm lenses can be used on most 28mm lenses when screwed in directly to the lens (they will cause vignetting if fitted over a filter). The same may be true with the HN-22 and 28-105?