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

[richardHaw]

just test if you can focus to infinity using the white bold line and the red lines 

in my experience overhauling this lens, the 2nd cell can be easily put back the wrong way and that can cause the lens to focus in a weird way

[JKoerner007]

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.

Hello Kenneth;

I've not yet received my copy, so am not sure if I 'scored,' or if I got taken (lol), but yes a clean copy of the instructions and other documentation is part of the deal.

Will provide my impressions, and can scan the instruction manual, once received.

[Kenneth Rich]

Thank you, and I look forward to receiving a scan.  Hoping your lens is the real thing and as advertised.

Richard, My concern is not sharpness of image, that is fine, according to my seventy-eight year old right lens and my one year old left lens, it is the focus distance displayed on the lens when it is focussed.  When I used Live View and focussed at infinity on the red lines, it was very close, however. I'm not worried, just curious, as I focus an image in the viewfinder,  not looking at the lens barrel distance figures.

[David H. Hartman]

I find most Parfocal or true zoom lenses need a touch of refocusing after zooming if one is really critical. I know there are many here with far more experience with many zoom lenses so I wondering what others have seen. I've heard of people shimming the bayonet of the lens with a paper shim to correct this problem. Using paper seem weird or tacky to me. I guess this may work? Popular wisdom is focus at the long end and zoom to the short. I refocus pretty much as a reflex with AF lenses. This is an AF-ON button away.

Any thoughts on this?

Dave Hartman

[Bent Hjarbo]

I have the AF version (first type shown om Rich's picture).
I got from a dumpster, so it may have been dismantled by more than one (me).
The problem is to get it aligned so it will focus at ∞ both at 28mm and 85mm.
At the moment if it focus at∞ @85mm it will show focus when the focus ring is at 1m @28mm.
The from group can be rotated, but can something be misaligned in the rear group? And how to adjust it?

Br Bent

[JKoerner007]

Thank you, and I look forward to receiving a scan.  Hoping your lens is the real thing and as advertised.

FYI, I got had ... but not totally ... pretty much as expected.

These lenses are normally $75-$110 used, clean, with no box.

I paid $200 (including shipping) for an alleged 'new' lens (defined by Ebay as "unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging").

The lens, box, and package inserts are all in sublime condition ... so I am pleased there.

However, the lens serial number and box serial number do not match ... and the cap (as hinted before) is modern, not the original.

It is essentially a piecemeal put-together ... of an admittedly very clean lens + accessory items ... however it is NOT a "new" lens (as defined by Ebay).

I have given the seller two options. He can either:

• Refund me $75, and I will keep the lens. This means I will have paid $125  for a USED lens (in great shape) + an UNRELATED box; or
• I will contact Paypal, demand a full refund, and Paypal will make sure I get my full $200 back for the misrepresentation, after I ship him back the item.

We'll see how it works out.

Jack

PS: The instructions are in perfect shape. However, the paper is not your typical robust/waxed paper. Instead, it is comprised of folded, very-thin paper, so it will be a delicate matter unfolding several different layers to then place under the weight of a flatbed scanner, without damaging the document. (Think a folded map made of rice paper, lol.)

[Roland Vink]

Sorry to hear your AIS 28-85 didn't live up to the description. From the picture you posted earlier, your lens has serial number 23xxxx which is as earlyish lens. It should come with the older style of instruction sheet with glossy paper and picture of the lens on the front. Later on they changed to a cheaper matte paper, and then to style of instruction sheet you received, which is the same style included with AF lenses.

[JKoerner007]

Sorry to hear your AIS 28-85 didn't live up to the description. From the picture you posted earlier, your lens has serial number 23xxxx which is as earlyish lens. It should come with the older style of instruction sheet with glossy paper and picture of the lens on the front. Later on they changed to a cheaper matte paper, and then to style of instruction sheet you received, which is the same style included with AF lenses.

Thanks Roland.

Funny, it's a complete piecemeal then.

The box serial number (230364) is older than the lens serial number (231461) ... so that means the dude pieced together a very old box with a somewhat newer lens ... but instead of the instructions of yore ... pieced them with the more modern, thin instructions.

Seems like a lot of work for a $100 profit over just a bare lens (less $20 shipping), so $80

The lens is in good enough shape to justify a $125 price tag, by itself, which is at the high-high end of street value.

Anyway, all is fair in love and war (and Ebay), and the financial expenditure is basically a good bar tab among friends, so no biggie.

Worst case scenario: I over-paid $75-$80 for a clean lens ... or I have to waste my time re-packaging a misrepped item, send it back, and get a refund.

Best case, dude agrees to refund me $75, so I get a super-clean version of the lens at the high-end of what it's worth.

Jack

PS: Thanks for the insight.

[Roland Vink]

Actually, the AIS 28-85 was one of the last AIS lenses to be introduced, at the end of 1985 just before the AF era, so it might not have had the old style instruction sheets ... not sure about that one, so it is possible the instructions you have are original with the lens (or box).

[John Geerts]

À little above average. I was not really impressed by the lens and sold it.

[JKoerner007]

Actually, the AIS 28-85 was one of the last AIS lenses to be introduced, at the end of 1985 just before the AF era, so it might not have had the old style instruction sheets ... not sure about that one, so it is possible the instructions you have are original with the lens (or box).

The issue has been resolved: the seller refunded me $50, making the price $130 + $20 shipping from Romania.

It's on the high-high-end of street value, but the lens really is absolutely pristine in condition (better shape than any of my modern AI-S lenses, purchased 2 years ago, brand-new, from B&H Photo).

One could not expect better from a 30 year old lens. It would have been a perfect transaction had the serial numbers matched.

[JKoerner007]

À little above average. I was not really impressed by the lens and sold it.

In fairness, John, your image stretched the limitations of any lens.

Here are some nature shots with the 28-85 (a previous copy I owned) that show its strength as a single lens for lightweight versatility in the field (properly-oriented).

For perspective, this was a field documentation of a 1.3 meter gopher snake with a single lens.

[JKoerner007]

And here are a couple with it reversed (~1:2 and ~ 1:1)

Will take some extreme macros with the new one, probably over the weekend, and will post them later ...

The point of this lens (to me) is the extremely-wide range applications one can achieve, without having to carry anything else but a reverse-ring in your pocket.

[Kenneth Rich]

Well, if my lens can do what you have done in creating those images, I'll be very happy!  Mine is a near younger sister to yours, the number being 231542, but not so well looked after, the front edge of the  threaded rim having received a ding from probably tossing it into a gear bag. The rest of the lens is unmarked.  At 125 bucks (I think!) I don't care if it is high end or low end, and I look forward to the spring temperatures!  The thread is undamaged, and I simply screwed in an L37c filter to protect the glass and cover up the repaired ding.Mine also came with  cheap made in China front and rear caps, no box, no tech info, no user info.

[JKoerner007]

Well, if my lens can do what you have done in creating those images, I'll be very happy!  Mine is a near younger sister to yours, the number being 231542, but not so well looked after, the front edge of the  threaded rim having received a ding from probably tossing it into a gear bag. The rest of the lens is unmarked.  At 125 bucks (I think!) I don't care if it is high end or low end, and I look forward to the spring temperatures!  The thread is undamaged, and I simply screwed in an L37c filter to protect the glass and cover up the repaired ding.Mine also came with  cheap made in China front and rear caps, no box, no tech info, no user info.

Thanks Kenneth.

I actually never use a lens filter.

Also, because I reverse-mount so frequently, the front filter threads of my lenses get worn pretty quick. Not so that they don't work, but that the matte black finish wears quickly. I am almost feeling guilty deploying this pristine lens in the field for this reason.

You might actually want to consider yourself lucky (and thus liberated) that yours already has a ding on the front thread ... this means you can happily use it and not worry about marks

I'll be interested in seeing your photos.