28/2 AI vs AIS

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I shoot for a couple of magazines and even the photo editors noticed the difference between the F2.8 and the F2 28mm lenses. Crystal sharp from near to infinity on the F2. Can't explain it except to maybe think that the F2.8 might have been designed for just near-mid distances only. Bjorn Rorslett seemed to agree.

Yup, got it. Did not understand the way you first put it but now do. Thanks.

 

[vlasta]

... Cristal sharp from near to infinity on the F2....

But awful corners up to 5.6-8.

 

[Ihmemies]

"Construction-wise, AIS lenses are usually smaller and lighter than their predecessors. In other words, costing cutting was coming home to Nikon. Most AIS lenses show cheapened construction. The typical five screws for the bayonet mount was reduced in most cases to only three. The traditional chrome ring on Nikon lenses between the focus ring and the aperture ring was replaced by aluminum.

All the "chrome" rings in Nikkors are bare aluminium... also materials are cheap as **** starting from first F lenses in 1959 till Nikon switched from metal to plastic in 80's. You can only dream of seeing brass helicoids in Nikkors...

At least in pre-Ais lenses Nikon also used crappy low quality helical greases unlike some quality brands like Pentax or Tamron, whose lenses are still silky smooth while all old Nikkors are terrible if unserviced.

The only difference beteen pre-ais and Ais lenses is unnceccessarilyy complicated ("fiddly") construction in earlier lenses. Servicing them is a tedious task compared to simpler Ais lenses.

The amount of bayonet screws does not matter with lighter lenses, Nikon kept using 5 screws in heavier telephoto lenses where it mattered.

I would look for other lens makers if I wanted high mechanical quality. Nikkors are tolerable (I own 11 manual focus Nikkors) because of the low prices and good selection of different lenses.

 

[chip j]

bump

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have read some reviews of the 28mm f2 AI lenses and people seem to love them. So, my first question is whether anyone here has experience with these. My other question is whether there is any significant difference between the AI and the AIS versions. The rave reviews I read were for the older AI lenses. Also, how do they compare to the 28 2.8 AIS lenses. I borrowed a friends 2.8 and loved it. I bought one for myself and was not satisfied with the images. It could have been the conditions/subject matter, but my return period was coming to a close and I decided I would rather have my money back than take a chance that I had a lemon. Anyhow, I just want a good, fairly fast wide lens for an upcoming trip to Portugal. I want to be able to take in a fair amount of territory on the narrow streets. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Jmal

24mmf/2.8 AI,AIs orAF all good!

 

[chip j]

I want to know more about the "crappy" grease Nikon is supposed to have used, anyone??

 

[jimjm]

The focus feel seems to be a bit lighter for some lenses, but I've never come across a manual-focus Nikkor with stiff or rough focus. They were made to hold up to professional use, and even some of the Series E lenses are not too bad. I've owned over 50 MF Nikkor lenses and seen some zoom creep, but that's about it. I have a 1960 50/2 Rigid Summicron that gummed-up and needed a total overhaul even though it's in excellent cosmetic condition, and it's a lot more expensive than any Nikkor I've owned. With AI/AIS and later, Nikon began introducing some plastic into the lenses, but so did every other lens maker around that time.

However, the nicest lenses I've ever used are the M42 Pentax Super-Takumar and SMC Takumar lenses. Those lenses are like buttah!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

they sold it to Canon

 

[dynachrome]

I have a number of 28/3.5 Nikkors including a 2.8cm model and two AI lenses. The AI lenses are very sharp and show less corner darkening than the earlier 3.5s. I think I also have a pre-AIS 28/2.8 somewhere too. The last of my 28 Nikkors is a 28/2 'K'. That's also very sharp. The f/2.8 AIS is a lens I don't have and may not get. The CRC is a nice feature but if I need to get close I'll use a 55/3.5 or 552.8 Micro Nikkor and the results will be better than anything I might get with a close focusing 28. The 28/1.8 UC Hexanon I have for my Konicas is sharp at every distance, has close focusing and is fast but periodically the oil likes to migrate to the aperture blades. When this isn't happening it's my favorite 28.