Nikkor 28-85mm f/3.5~4.5 ai-s

[richardHaw]

currently overhauling one 

construction is pretty simple and clever

very easy to overhaul zoom...

my test showed that it's a pretty decent lens on digital, maybe even better on film.
what are you experiences with this lens?

[gryphon1911]

When I had mine, I loved it...almost regret trading it for the 28-105/3.5-4.5...almost.  I appreciate the extra reach.

The copy of the 28-85 I had was sharp even wide ope.  Not the fastest to AF, but sufficient enough that I never missed a shot.   It felt right on everything I mounted it on, the Df and the D700 both used it well.

This is what I've been able to get with this lens, if anyone has any interest:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gryphon1911/albums/72157629466160390

[richardHaw]

sorry, I was referring to the Ai-S version 

I edited the headline.

I suppose the optics remained the same? 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The optics of the AIS and the AF are unlikely to be identical.

[richardHaw]

The optics of the AIS and the AF are unlikely to be identical.

i just checked and it's a lot smaller 

[Kenneth Rich]

I bought one of these to use next year  on a Euro rivers  cruise.  I've just compared it in focus to a second generation 43-86 Nikkor.  When I focus the 43-86 using the green dot, If I am careful, the green dot remains constant throughout the zoom range. And this lens is a two touch zoom (aperture one control, focus and zoom the other)  There is decided focus shift with the 28-85, no matter how careful I am, and this lens, with its extra  control, should be easier to maintain focus. I wrote down the figures at about an eight feet distance from camera to subject, checking and re-checking.  I've tossed the piece of note paper away, so I will have to do it again, but it was quite noticeable.  I'll get back to you on this when i've sorted the kitchen faucet change, which is more pressing, and which has created a huge mess in the kitchen.

[Roland Vink]

Smaller? The dimensions of the AIS and AF versions are very similar, the AIS has a slightly smaller diameter and is a little lighter, but not by much:
http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#28-xx

Like most early AF lenses, the optics are borrowed from AIS or series-E designs. All versions have an optical design with 15 elements in 11 groups, and close focus limit of 0.8m. The AIS and early AF versions also have a macro mode similar to the 35-105, which is a short secondary focus helicoid near the base of the lens, effectively a built-in extension tube. It works at all focal lengths but makes the most difference towards the wide end of the zoom range. The newer AF version (with rubber focus ring) seems to have a different macro mode which only operates at 28mm, according to the specs it end up at the same 1:3.4 magnification so it probably works the same way but implemented differently.

I tried the AIS version once years ago on my FE2, the slides turned out very sharp, good contrast and colours. I was more into primes at that stage so I didn't buy it.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 28-85 AiS is OK, but not stellar, on modern DSLRs.  It handles well on the Df, though, and the low amount of barrel distortion at the short end is unusual for a zoom lens this wide. The pincushion distortion on the long end is more visible yet manageable.

Unlike some other zoom siblings of that epoch, it doesn't do too well in IR.

[Kenneth Rich]

For the record:  Distance by tape from camera to edge of door frame , 9 feet.  Aperture chosen, f5.6.
Focal length, 28mm, 4 feet indicated when green spot appeared.
Focal length  35mm, 4 feet indicated with green spot still present.
Focal length 50mm, 5 feet indicated  when green spot re-appeared.
Focal length 85mm, 7 feet indicated when green spot re-appeared.

Does this mean that my lens met with an accident sometime between production and now, or is it perfectly normal for zoom lenses to exhibit this behaviour?

[richardHaw]

Ok, i saw a different lens awhile ago! It was the 35-135!
Lenses from this era confuse me a lot!

[richardHaw]

For the record:  Distance by tape from camera to edge of door frame , 9 feet.  Aperture chosen, f5.6.
Focal length, 28mm, 4 feet indicated when green spot appeared.
Focal length  35mm, 4 feet indicated with green spot still present.
Focal length 50mm, 5 feet indicated  when green spot re-appeared.
Focal length 85mm, 7 feet indicated when green spot re-appeared.

Does this mean that my lens met with an accident sometime between production and now, or is it perfectly normal for zoom lenses to exhibit this behaviour?

Mine is spot-on but you will have to refer tonthe red line instead of the bold white line

Terrible wide-open at 85mm but pretty decent at 28mm

[Roland Vink]

You will have noticed the aperture ring and maybe some other parts are made from plastic. Although it is an AIS lens it has some Series-E DNA. When the 28-85 was introduced in 1985 the Series-E line had been discontinued, or more accurately merged with the AIS line ...

[JKoerner007]

You will have noticed the aperture ring and maybe some other parts are made from plastic. Although it is an AIS lens it has some Series-E DNA. When the 28-85 was introduced in 1985 the Series-E line had been discontinued, or more accurately merged with the AIS line ...

The 28-85 and the 28-50 AI-S are perhaps the most versatile, single lenses one can take in the field (1) with an adapter ring and (2) if a person is into macro.

Having tested a few copies of both, the 28-50 is easier to use, but the 28-85 is overall the more versatile. (Will provide a comprehensive overview of my claim, later.)

Anyway, have a "new" (allegedly-unused, pristine) 28-85, purchased from the estate of a deceased collector, en route from Romania as we speak. I doubt the claim, as the front lens cap looks modern, but it still looks 'mint' and has the box, so we'll see.

[Kenneth Rich]

JKoerner007, is that a user instructions/tech sheet in one of the images you posted?  I 'd  be happy to pay you for a copy, either on-line or photo-copy, if it is in English.And I wish my lens were as new looking as the one you have scored! And I've realized since this lens has been under discussion, that the "green dot" is not a rangefinder in the way that split image rangefinders were/are as in my little Bessa, but are restricted to focus indicators. I've tried my 28, 35, two 50's and my 105 with the Df against the measuring tape/green dot appearance and not one of these lenses indicates numbers close to the measured 9 feet.

[richardHaw]

JKoerner007, is that a user instructions/tech sheet in one of the images you posted?  I 'd  be happy to pay you for a copy, either on-line or photo-copy, if it is in English.And I wish my lens were as new looking as the one you have scored! And I've realized since this lens has been under discussion, that the "green dot" is not a rangefinder in the way that split image rangefinders were/are as in my little Bessa, but are restricted to focus indicators. I've tried my 28, 35, two 50's and my 105 with the Df against the measuring tape/green dot appearance and not one of these lenses indicates numbers close to the measured 9 feet.

Like i mentioned refer to the red lines for focusing on 50mm or 28mm
If that’s still off then you have a defective lens