Nikkor 28mm f/2 Ai-S

[richardHaw]

https://richardhaw.com/2020/12/25/review-nikkor-28mm-f-2-ai-s/

for those wondering how this lens performs

surprisingly good...much better than the older Nikkor-N, probably due to coating advances.

[David H. Hartman]

I find the 28/2.0 AIS to have great flare and ghost resistance. It's one of three lenses that I own that have this property. These include the 16/2.8 AIS Fish Eye, 20/3.5 AI and finally the 20/2.0 AIS. I find the flare and ghost of these three lenses allow shoot into the sun and even including the sun in the frame. I'm something of a sharpness freak but don't deny me flare and ghost control! I own two copies of the 28/2.0. I think possibly the flare issues you are seeing is due to the fungus damage.

Reading comparisons of the 28/2.0 AIS and 28/2.8 AIS some mention that you'll want to stop down either lens one stop when possible. I find the 28/2.0 AIS fine wide open when shooting in a PJ style. If I feel the need for speed I'll use it. I find the best performance around f/4.0 to f/5.6 and I like shooting the 28/2.0 AIS at f/2.8 to f/11.

I'll go back to reading your article.

Dave

Richard, If you like the lens other than the flare and ghost issue you might try another sample.

[Birna Rørslett]

I have the 28/2 AI and it is a very fine performer, from wide open onwards to at least f/5.6. Image quality holds up to f/11 for many subjects. Flare and ghosting are absolutely minimal with my sample at least.

I briefly considered swapping it for the AIS version which does focus a bit closer (to 0.25m instead of 0.3m), but test shots didn't convince me this was worth while.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Nice article Richard. I agree nearly completely. I have the AI-S and like it a lot wide open for natural subjects, especially within a couple of meters. The focus scale is reasonable in that range too.
But it has too much distortion for most architectural work.

[John Geerts]

I agree it's a fine lens

Nice article Richard. I agree nearly completely. I have the AI-S and like it a lot wide open for natural subjects, especially within a couple of meters.

Agree, but in that close range the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S is a much much better performer.  Also for dark/night scenes, the 2.8 is the better lens.

[Roland Vink]

https://richardhaw.com/2020/12/25/review-nikkor-28mm-f-2-ai-s/

This is an upgrade of the older Nikkor 28mm f/2 Ai wherein it gets a new barrel and perhaps, better coatings.
Even the original Nikkor-N 28/2 is fully multicoated (only the second Nikkor like this after the Nikkor-N 35/1.4) so all versions should have good contrast and resistance to flare. The coatings change colour a little through the AI and AIS versions which indicates improvements to the coatings. AIS lenses from about 6134xx and higher have newer SIC coatings which are yellow-green in colour.

It has a rather pathetic depth-of-field scale which I don’t like, it’s narrower compared to many wide-angle Nikkors.
Even the original Nikkor-N 28/2 has a rather short focus throw and narrow depth-of-field scale compared to other lenses of the same period. The focus throw is just 120° from infinity to 0.3m. The focus throw to 0.6m is about 50°, while the Nikkor-H 28/3.5 goes 190° to the same distance - nearly four times longer! (admittedly the focus throw of the 28/3.5 is probably excessive given its rather limited focus range). The focus throw of the AIS version is the same but it squeezes in an even greater focus range - down to 0.25m - so the DoF scale is even more compressed.

The optics mainly remained the same throughout all its versions but I suspect that it underwent a few minor modifications apart from the expected coating upgrades.
The optics have a very similar history as the Nikkor-N 35/1.4. Both are high-speed wide angle lenses introduced in 1970. At the time they were very advanced optical designs with close range correction and multi-coating on all lenses surfaces. Both had minor changes to the optical system at the time when the lens barrel design was changed to the NEW-Nikkor. Though the basic lens construction remained unchanged, the glass material and the lens curvature were changed to improve the performance at open aperture (in the case of the 35/1.4, radioactive glass was no longer used). The optical design was unchanged through the AI version. With the AIS version of the 28/2 the close focus limit was reduced from 0.3m to 0.25m. I'm not sure if this was achieved by simply extending the focus range (and CRC) of the existing design or if there were further changes to the optical system.

Just like the Nikkor-N 28mm f/2 Auto and the rest of the family, it incorporates CRC on the rear block.
In all the samples I have seen, it is the front group which "floats". As the lens is focused closer the front group rotates within the barrel and extends at a fractionally slower rate that the front barrel - at close range you can see a small gap opens up between the beauty ring and the retaining ring around the front element. The rear group does not rotate and extends in parallel with the upper barrel, similar to a unit-focusing lens. The result is that the space between the front and rear groups reduces at close range, providing improved correction. The AIS 28/2.8 and 20/2.8 have similar CRC arrangements.

[richardHaw]

This is an upgrade of the older Nikkor 28mm f/2 Ai wherein it gets a new barrel and perhaps, better coatings.
Even the original Nikkor-N 28/2 is fully multicoated (only the second Nikkor like this after the Nikkor-N 35/1.4) so all versions should have good contrast and resistance to flare. The coatings change colour a little through the AI and AIS versions which indicates improvements to the coatings. AIS lenses from about 6134xx and higher have newer SIC coatings which are yellow-green in colour.

It has a rather pathetic depth-of-field scale which I don’t like, it’s narrower compared to many wide-angle Nikkors.
Even the original Nikkor-N 28/2 has a rather short focus throw and narrow depth-of-field scale compared to other lenses of the same period. The focus throw is just 120° from infinity to 0.3m. The focus throw to 0.6m is about 50°, while the Nikkor-H 28/3.5 goes 190° to the same distance - nearly four times longer! (admittedly the focus throw of the 28/3.5 is probably excessive given its rather limited focus range). The focus throw of the AIS version is the same but it squeezes in an even greater focus range - down to 0.25m - so the DoF scale is even more compressed.

The optics mainly remained the same throughout all its versions but I suspect that it underwent a few minor modifications apart from the expected coating upgrades.
The optics have a very similar history as the Nikkor-N 35/1.4. Both are high-speed wide angle lenses introduced in 1970. At the time they were very advanced optical designs with close range correction and multi-coating on all lenses surfaces. Both had minor changes to the optical system at the time when the lens barrel design was changed to the NEW-Nikkor. Though the basic lens construction remained unchanged, the glass material and the lens curvature were changed to improve the performance at open aperture (in the case of the 35/1.4, radioactive glass was no longer used). The optical design was unchanged through the AI version. With the AIS version of the 28/2 the close focus limit was reduced from 0.3m to 0.25m. I'm not sure if this was achieved by simply extending the focus range (and CRC) of the existing design or if there were further changes to the optical system.

Just like the Nikkor-N 28mm f/2 Auto and the rest of the family, it incorporates CRC on the rear block.
In all the samples I have seen, it is the front group which "floats". As the lens is focused closer the front group rotates within the barrel and extends at a fractionally slower rate that the front barrel - at close range you can see a small gap opens up between the beauty ring and the retaining ring around the front element. The rear group does not rotate and extends in parallel with the upper barrel, similar to a unit-focusing lens. The result is that the space between the front and rear groups reduces at close range, providing improved correction. The AIS 28/2.8 and 20/2.8 have similar CRC arrangements.

Thanks for catching those! I had to look at the Nikkor-N article to make sure that the CRC is indeed at the front and you're right!

[Gerhard2006]

If you read this review you will see that he agrees with Birna that the AI seems to be better than the AIS lens. I only have  the previous N version and I love that lens I use it on my D 300 as a wide normal and I love it even more on my D 700 and as others have mentioned it’s great for shooting into the sun. Regards Gerry http://www.momentcorp.com/review/Nikkor28mmf2.html

[muleschooler]

Hi everyone. I'm interested in this lens for an FM3A. Is it worth getting a later one with SIC coating? Will it make that much difference with flaring? Any insight you can give into the advantages will be appreciated.

[Roland Vink]

I think all versions have good resistance to flare and ghosting. Any AI or AIS lens in good shape would be a good match for the FM3a. The AIS 28/2 focuses slightly closer than older version - 0.25m compared to 0.3m. But if you never focus so close then the AI has slightly longer focus throw to 0.3m so focusing is a bit slower and more accurate. The AI might also be built a bit more solidly too. But I would be happy to use either

[Birna Rørslett]

I can only agree with Roland's summary. Any 28/2 Nikkor will do just fine.

[Fons Baerken]

I checked i have a late ai type sn 557060 it focuses to a near 28cm
(for comparison i post a zeiss distagon 28/2 on the daily blog and both on  Df)

[Robert Camfield]

Nikon's vintage 28's including the 3.5s are pretty good. I've carried out a number of ad hoc comparisons and it's my impression that the 2.8 AIS may be preferred, overall. Certainly in close but also at distances, the 2.8 AIS obtains very nice images; I've never noticed flare or ghost images to be much of issue. For several years (1970-74) I used Canon F-1s and FD lenses...the 24mm f2.8 had serious flare difficulties. In any case, as noted in various web commentary, Nikon's 28mm 2.0 is a close match to the 28 2.8 AIS at medium and longer distances. Surprising to me is the 3.5s AI/AIS, which perform better than I anticipated but for axis color fringing toward the edges beginning perhaps 2/3 out from center frame. Also, the 2.8 AI seems to provide, beginning at f4, high across-frame resolution beyond 7 meters or so. But these are mere impressions...hardly a quantitative assessment. My current vintage wide angles include 20 3.5 AI, 24 2.0 AI, 28 2.8 AIS, 28 3.5 AI, 35 2.8 AIS, and the 35 1.4 AIS though I've used several others at one time or another.   

Not understood is Nikon's focus throw design choices. The throw for the early 35mm 2.8 AI (6 element) is comparatively long but very short for the late 35mm 2.8 AI. Then, the throw for the 35mm 2.8 AIS is extended, compared to the late AI version. Yet, the throws of the AIS versions of the 24 2.8, 28 2.0, and 28 3.5 are comparatively short with reference to the AI counterparts.

 


As Roland alludes to, I like the longer throw of the AIs though it isn't always this

[Birna Rørslett]

Interesting. I have had several 28/2.8 AIS Nikkors and none were outstanding at distance, compared to their excellent performance up close. The 28/2 AI Nikkor is excellent at distance and still good in the close range, so kind of bridges the gap.

The 28/3.5 K and AI are excellent for IR and that what I mainly use them for.

[Robert Camfield]

Birna,

You may well be right regarding the 28 2.8 and 2.0...again, I was merely reflecting on general impressions. Also, the 28 2.0 that I used for a while was an AI variant which I anticipate has earlier lens coatings. Along this line...the 2.8 compared to the 2.0...I ran across a comparison on the web - below. You may wish to take a look though its hardly definitive, and the presentation of the comparison images is somewhat confusing.    Robert

http://darinmcquoid.com/28s.html