the phantom 28-80/2.8D

[Roland Vink]

I'd like to include the lens on my site. If you can supply me with some of the specifications:
- weight
- diameter
- length from mount
- number of aperture blades (straight or rounded?)
- close focus limit (same at all focal lengths?)
- reproduction ratio as closest focus
- focus throw
That should be enough. I can put the link from my site to your blog since it is the best information available.
If I forget anything I can always contact the owner

[richardHaw]

I'd like to include the lens on my site. If you can supply me with some of the specifications:
- weight
- diameter
- length from mount
- number of aperture blades (straight or rounded?)
- close focus limit (same at all focal lengths?)
- reproduction ratio as closest focus
- focus throw
That should be enough. I can put the link from my site to your blog since it is the best information available.
If I forget anything I can always contact the owner

ok, i will borrow my wife's scale...

[richardHaw]

I updated the specs in the site. i didnt get to do some of the tests unfortunately

[Roland Vink]

EXIF data: NIKON CORPORATION 28-80mm f/2.8D

I think the word "Alleged" is no longer needed in your title, the EXIF and everything else about the lens make it pretty clear it is a real Nikkor

[richardHaw]

EXIF data: NIKON CORPORATION 28-80mm f/2.8D

I think the word "Alleged" is no longer needed in your title, the EXIF and everything else about the lens make it pretty clear it is a real Nikkor

for "legal" reasons

what a shame, it would have been a great lens if produced

[Roland Vink]

Your tests showed it was a little weak at 80mm, do you think that is why the focal range was reduced to 70mm?

[richardHaw]

Your tests showed it was a little weak at 80mm, do you think that is why the focal range was reduced to 70mm?

probably...but there's probably the reason that Nikon was already planning for the 70-200 at that time

I could not date the lens...judging from the internals i suspect it's around 1994 or 1995 sometimes you could surmise when it was designed just by looking at the layout and the engineering practices. this is certainly NOT made in the early 90s since its internals do not share much with many lenses from that era.

[Roland Vink]

I can only go by appearances, the AF 28-80/2.8 ED has the same AF technology and outer styling as the AF 80-200/2.8 D ED (new) - the two-ring version with tripod mount. The 80-200 was released in Jan 1997. It's likely the 80-200 was in development at least a year earlier and the 28-80 was probably in development around the same time, so the prototype could have been made some time in 1996.

That also fits the time-line for the AF-S 28-70. After Nikon decided not to go ahead with the 28-80, they designed the new 28-70 either from the ground up or by adapting the 28-80 further. Development, testing, pre-production and tooling up takes at least two years which brings up us to the release date of the AF-S 28-70 in Feb 1999.

I don't think they reduced the zoom range because they were planning for the 70-200. The first 70-200 (AF-S 70-200/28 IF-ED VR) didn't appear until four years later. Also, the AF-S 80-200/2.8 was released only two months before the 28-70 so they would have planned both lenses together. Nikon was obviously happy with the 10mm gap between the two, and probably was not satisfied with the performance of the 28-80 at 80mm, or felt the 28-80 was too large for a standard zoom - it's bigger than the 28-70 which is already a very big lens - "the beast"

[richardHaw]

i had a conversation with Sato-san a few years back, he told me that creating a lens from the ground up took much less time than that, i was surprised maybe in 90s technology with the help of cad/cam tooling could be done in 1-2 months the fit of this lens is almost perfect, i would say 95% to production standards.

i really have no idea why this wasnt made...maybe too little too late...

[Erik Lund]

The range 28-80mm was most likely chosen as a design target to fit between the two amazing sister lenses; 20-35mm AF-D f/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 AF-D ED (new) both two ring as Roland mention.
The 35-70mm AF-D f/2.8 was so well accepted and implemented by pro users for it's overall great quality that there was no real need for the extra range between 28 and 35mm which was covered by the wide20-35mm zoom.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 35-70mm AF-D f/2.8 was so well accepted and implemented by pro users for it's overall great quality that there was no real need for the extra range between 28 and 35mm which was covered by the wide20-35mm zoom.

IMO 35-70 is a quite narrow range and Canon was already selling the 28-80mm f/2.8-4L from 1989. Nikon a few years later launched the 28-70mm f/2.8, and in the DX format 17-55mm which is equivalent to 26-83mm. I think increasing the range of the zoom was a high priority. I would like to see this continue; we're currently stuck with 24-70mm which is a good range but a bit more length would be useful if it can be done with minimal reduction of image quality. The 24-120/4 does not have even remotely close to the same image quality.

A bit of overlap between adjacent zooms is not a problem, it can be a benefit and reduce the frequency of having to change lenses.

However, if there is substantial image quality loss or inconsistency between settings (distance, focal length, aperture) then the increase may not be justified. I can easily live with 24-70 but if I could choose, 28-80/2.8 would probably be my preferred choice.

Nikon seem to have decided that a gapless range with no overlap is ideal. But then they went and created two new zooms with overlap (120-300 and 180-400 both of which overlap with the 70-200 range). Go figure.

[David H. Hartman]

The range 28-80mm was most likely chosen as a design target to fit between the two amazing sister lenses; 20-35mm AF-D f/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 AF-D ED (new) both two ring as Roland mention.
The 35-70mm AF-D f/2.8 was so well accepted and implemented by pro users for it's overall great quality that there was no real need for the extra range between 28 and 35mm which was covered by the wide20-35mm zoom.

A major advantage of a zoom lens is reducing the need to change lenses. Having zoom lenses that overlap in their range is a great advantage, e.g. 16-35mm, 24-120mm, 70-200mm. I wish the 24-120mm were a better preforming lens with as slightly faster maximum aperture, maybe f/3.5 while being the same size, weight and price. One can dream; maybe some day.

Dave