Cannot decide between two lenses - help needed :)

[Roland Vink]

The Nikkor-H 28/3.5 optics are found in the Nikkor-H.C version (with multicoating) and had a minor tweak in the late pre-AI K/New Nikkor version to improve performance at close range (it focuses to 0.3m compared to 0.6m for the older versions). The AI and AIS versions have an all-new optical design with a much smaller front element and larger rear element, although it remains a 6-element design and the arrangement of concave and convex lenses is similar to the original version.

The original Nikkor-H is a pretty good lens, especially when you consider it was designed in the early 1960s and was the first successful wide (wider than 35mm) lens for SLR cameras. The main thing to watch is that the large front element and wide angle of view means it vignettes very easily - only the thinnest filters should be used.

I have used the AI 28/3.5 a little, my impression is that it also performs quite well as you should expect from a newer design, but my shooting was mainly restricted to landscape shots with the lens stopped well down.

[Zang]

Thanks Roland. You keep impress with your detail knowledge.

I consider getting 28mm f2.8 AIS but I started hearing complains about its far distance performance. The majority of the rest compare it to flying to the moon, though In the meantime, I do have f3.5 to play with. I'll get f2.8 only if I find a good deal.

Cheers,
Zang

[Roland Vink]

I think the AIS 28/2.8 is fine at far distances when stopped down, but I am sure there are other lenses which perform better at wide apertures.

[Frank Fremerey]

Thanks Roland. You keep impress with your detail knowledge.

I consider getting 28mm f2.8 AIS but I started hearing complains about its far distance performance. The majority of the rest compare it to flying to the moon, though In the meantime, I do have f3.5 to play with. I'll get f2.8 only if I find a good deal.

Cheers,
Zang

The 2.0/28 Nikkor family is another class of lens. Reliable quality.

[Zang]

The 2.0/28 Nikkor family is another class of lens. Reliable quality.

That opinion is more consistent among user than those for 2.8. However, 2.0 is pretty rare and the price is usually high. Sometimes, price for 2.0 is very close to 1.8G what makes little sense.

Cheers,
Zang

[Frank Fremerey]

the rendering of the modern lens is very different.

[Zang]

the rendering of the modern lens is very different.

In that regard, you are right!

[Zang]

I think the AIS 28/2.8 is fine at far distances when stopped down, but I am sure there are other lenses which perform better at wide apertures.

I know the question is too generic, but all in all do you think the difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is worth the effort of getting the later one?

[Frank Fremerey]

I have an emotional affection for the older f/3.5 lenses. There is an old time feel to them ergonomically as well as rendering style wise. They are so well made: no rubber, no plastic just pure metal and glass and tar (this black glue stuff I mean) ... they feel so pure and well crafted...

[Zang]

I have an emotional affection for the older f/3.5 lenses. There is an old time feel to them ergonomically as well as rendering style wise. They are so well made: no rubber, no plastic just pure metal and glass and tar (this black glue stuff I mean) ... they feel so pure and well crafted...

I know... I miss my little VW Golf and its manual gear shift so much

[Roland Vink]

I know the question is too generic, but all in all do you think the difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is worth the effort of getting the later one?

The AIS 28/2.8 focuses much closer - down to 0.2m, compared to 0.25m for the AIS 28/2, 0.3m for most other 28mm models, and 0.6m for the old Nikkor-H(C). The AIS 28/2.8 will give magnification of 1:3.9 at close focus, so you could almost consider it a wideangle macro. If you mostly shoot landscapes the closeup performance won't be of much importance, but the ability to focus close does make the lens more versatile.

The AIS 28/2.8 also has very low geometric distortion - straight lines are rendered straight right to the edge of the frame. The AI 28/2.8 is similar, it has a similar optical design but without close range correction (CRC), so it does not focus as close or perform as well at close range. All the other 28mm lenses have some barrel distortion which could make them less suitable for architecture or seascapes.

[Zang]

The AIS 28/2.8 focuses much closer...

Thanks Roland. Maybe, I'll find someone who complains about autofocus not working on their 28mm/2.8 AIS

[F2F3F6]

The AI 28/2.8 is similar, it has a similar optical design but without close range correction (CRC), so it does not focus as close or perform as well at close range. All the other 28mm lenses have some barrel distortion which could make them less suitable for architecture or seascapes.

Not really similar design, Roland :
Ai Nikkor: 7 elements in 7 groups. Nikon Integrated multicoating (NIC). Conventional design, no CRC.
Ais : 8 elements in 8 groups. CRC close range correction.

I had both and I think the Ais is the better one. Ai is not a bad lens, but not as good at 2,8 to 5,6 and not so evenly performant as the Ais.

[Roland Vink]

Not really similar design, Roland :
Ai Nikkor: 7 elements in 7 groups. Nikon Integrated multicoating (NIC). Conventional design, no CRC.
Ais : 8 elements in 8 groups. CRC close range correction.

It depends on what you mean by similar
Look at the optical design of the two lenses (AI top, AIS bottom) - the arrangement of element is very similar except the AI has one thick element in the centre, while in the AIS version it is replaced with two smaller elements, with CRC applied across the gap. While they are clearly different designs I regard the AIS as a more developed version of the AI.

AI 28mm 1:2.8


AIS 28mm 1:2.8

[Zang]

...Ais is the better one. Ai is not a bad lens, but not as good at 2,8 to 5,6 and not so evenly performant as the Ais.

Is it true at all distances?

I have 24mm f2.8 AIS and when it outperforms other ordinary lenses (like 35mm f2.8  ) up to 3 meters or so but the further the object is, the smaller the differences are (if at all).