28mm winners on f-mount

[dynachrome]

This kind of thread shows up on many photo websites. It seems that someone or something is always trying to dethrone the 28/2.8 AIS Nikkor. By now, it's design is 44 years old. It shouldn't be surprising that some newer designs might outperform it in certain respects. So far I have resisted the temptation to get one. I have a 28/2 'K' Nikkor which is also very good and which also has a floating element design. I find that for the subjects I would typically use it for, landscapes etc., the 28/3.5 AI is excellent. The fact that my 28/2 or a 28/2.8 AIS might be sharper in the close-up range is not important to me. A 55/2.8 or 60/2.8 Micro Nikkor is much sharper in the close-up range than any wide angle.
My next observation is that if I know I will need to make a large print, I will use the 6X4.5 or 6X6 or 6X7 format. Knowing that one 28mm lens or another, made for the 35mm format, is 2% sharper in the far corners is just not that useful. My last observation is that as equipment gets better and better and more expensive, the demand for high quality work has never been lower. Most images are never printed on paper or even viewed on a large monitor. Earlier today I made a call to an investment company. I was asked whether I wanted to perform the transaction on a phone. The answer was no. It was done using a 17" monitor so I could see what I was doing. It should not take a $10,000 camera rig to produce an image which will be viewed on a small cell phone screen. Are there bragging rights for having the sharpest 28mm lens (in Nikon F mount or any other mount)? Maybe. I have many excellent 28mm lenses but I might still add 28/2.8 Zeiss Y/C.

 

[images39]

I'll put put in a good word for the 28mm 2.8 Ai-s. I'm consistently happy with the results from this lens. I don't do lens testing or get into the technical specs very much; I just look at the prints. I think this lens is a great choice for shooting wide angle on a Nikon.

Dale

 

[chuckroast]

Hello fellow photographers,

My favorite focal length being 28mm, and my favorite mount being the f mount, can you point me to what you think are best performers?

They don’t have to be nikon and they don’t have to be expensive, just what gave you very good results.

I don’t care about the famous bokeh, sharpness is more important to me: my 50mm f1.8 D, 50 euro, has consistently outperformed my 50mm f1.4G, 300+ euro.

I have owned a huge range of Nikon AIS lenses over the years (and many pre-AIS) but I never owned the 28mm f/2.8 Nikkor AIS until recently. It is an excellent performer. So, call this another vote for that lens.

 

[chuckroast]

I remember reading a test back in the day where the Elmarit and Nikkor AIs ended up together on the podestal and a step ahead of their competition from almost everyone making a 2.8/28 in the early eighties. I never shot the Elmarit but I doubt there is much to win in chosing it over the Nikkor AIs, the 2.8/28 AIs really is one of the outstanding lenses in Nikons lineup from that era.

I can't speak for the 28mm but I have direct experience with the Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 and f/1.4 AIS variants as well as the Summicron 35mm f/2 ASPH.

The Summicron is visibly ... different. It has a look to it that is just different than the Nikkors. Not "better" but just a different vibe. The 35mm f/1.4 AIS and 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH are both in my rotation for their respective camera families because I like what they both do as every day wandering around lenses. Honorable mention to the 35mm f/2.5 in LTM on my IIIf - again, a look unto itself.

I'd expect as similar distinction to exist between a 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor (which I own) and the 28mm f/2 ASPH Summicron-M or 28mm f/2.8 ASPH Elmarit-M lenses (neither of which I own).

 

[skahde]

I'd expect as similar distinction to exist between a 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor (which I own) and the 28mm f/2 ASPH Summicron-M or 28mm f/2.8 ASPH Elmarit-M lenses (neither of which I own).

Unfortunately the M-lenses cant be modified for use on Nikon-F while the R-Elmarit can and that's why it was mentioned.
With respect to 35 mm Nikon lenses I do not think the 2.8 and 2.0 AIs are highspots in their lineup although I used them for many years. I liked the Leica M 2/35 ver. 4 a lot better and also the ZF-Distagon 2/35. I just recently acquired and overhauled a AId K-Nikkor 1.4/35 and I'm still curious how this will perform.

 

[Nitroplait]

f100 and f80

As far as I recall there will be limitations with regular ai/ais on F80, but on F100 they should be fine.


I have both the Nikkor 28mm f/2 AIS (340gr., close focus CRC: 25cm. lens length focused at infinity when mounted: 6cm)
and the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS (257gr. close focus CRC: 20cm. lens length focused at infinity when mounted: 4.5cm)

My copies both perform equally well at f/4. The 28/2 has an advantage at f/2.8 as should be expected.
From f/4 and higher I have no preference between the two.

Interestingly it seems like sold eBay prices are higher for the 28/2.8 - about 25%.

There may be a hype factor to this, but perhaps some logic as well. The 28/2 feels distinctively bigger and heavier than the 28/2.8 and unless you need the extra stop, the 28/2.8 is definitely more manageable and practical.

 

[George Mann]

With respect to 35 mm Nikon lenses I do not think the 2.8 and 2.0 AIs are highspots in their lineup although I used them for many years.

The "long-barrel" small front element f2.8 K/Ai is the Nikkor gem in this focal length when stopped down.

 

[Nitroplait]

As for the AF 28/2.8 (5 elements) and AFD 28/2.8 (6 elements): I have used both and the latter is preferable over the former. None of them qualify as great lenses.
I used the AFD version for 3-4 years - bought new, and it was a good value at the time (the second cheapest AFD Nikkor prime in the catalogue after the AFD 50/1.8).
I haven't checked prices, but it is not worth considering these unless priced accordingly.

 

[Nitroplait]

The "long-barrel" small front element f2.8 K/Ai is the Nikkor gem in this focal length when stopped down.

Agree. Although OP is looking for a 28mm.

The <New> transitional short lived 35/2.8 is quite good and, not least, low priced because people don't know how to identify it.
Below is my collection. The good one is the one in the center.

 

[albireo]

Surprised that nobody has mentioned the new Voigtländer (Cosìna) 28mm f/2.8 Skopar yet.

It's exceptional, small, and importantly can be purchased new, so no gambling with fungus, blade oils, hidden damage, etc.

After buying the Voigtländer trio - 40mm Ultron f/2 (another gem), 28mm Skopar and the 58mm Nokton I've sold all my Nikon Ai-S primes.

I've kept a 35mm AF-D and 85mm AF-D 1.8 for fast paced flash photography of the kids.

 

[skahde]

Agree. Although OP is looking for a 28mm.

The <New> transitional short lived 35/2.8 is quite good and, not least, low priced because people don't know how to identify it.
Below is my collection. The good one is the one in the center.

Incidentally, I owned the one in the middle for a short while but not long enough before making the stupid move to go all-digital and only keep the sharpest and newest lenses I had. That also meant selling a wonderful F2Sb serviced by Sover Wong together with said lens. Maybe I try another on the F3...

 

[pierods]

Surprised that nobody has mentioned the new Voigtländer (Cosìna) 28mm f/2.8 Skopar yet.

It's exceptional, small, and importantly can be purchased new, so no gambling with fungus, blade oils, hidden damage, etc.

After buying the Voigtländer trio - 40mm Ultron f/2 (another gem), 28mm Skopar and the 58mm Nokton I've sold all my Nikon Ai-S primes.

I've kept a 35mm AF-D and 85mm AF-D 1.8 for fast paced flash photography of the kids.

Would you care to show samples?

 

[chuckroast]

Unfortunately the M-lenses cant be modified for use on Nikon-F while the R-Elmarit can and that's why it was mentioned.
With respect to 35 mm Nikon lenses I do not think the 2.8 and 2.0 AIs are highspots in their lineup although I used them for many years. I liked the Leica M 2/35 ver. 4 a lot better and also the ZF-Distagon 2/35. I just recently acquired and overhauled a AId K-Nikkor 1.4/35 and I'm still curious how this will perform.

Agree on the f/2.8 which is why I sold it and got an f/1.4. But the f/2.0 enjoys a quite good reputation, though I've not used one myself.

I think you'll enjoy your f/1.4 though I don't know how the K-Nikkor compares to the AIS variant. I suspect that any difference would be most noticeable in colour due to the generational differences in coating technology. They are about the same optical design though the AIS may have more aperture blades, I don't know.

 

[skahde]

Agree on the f/2.8 which is why I sold it and got an f/1.4. But the f/2.0 enjoys a quite good reputation, though I've not used one myself.

It is sharp but in no way special and not of highest resolution, a Summicron 2/35 v4 was a lot sharper and put more detail on the film. Also the Nikkor has strong vignetting wide open and produces nasty flares when shooting into the sun. I used the AIs from 1990 to 2002 and then switched to a wider lens, an AI-upgraded 2/28 NC which behaved quite a bit better in every category. Later I got a Distagon ZF 2/35 which exposed the largest print in my house, 1.2 m on the long edge, pinsharp to the corner, a real gem of a lens and at least as sharp as the tiny Summicron.

 

[paddycook]

Well if money is not an issue, for a F100 that takes G lens, the Sigma 28mm 1.4 art lens, sharp wide to F16, other wise all of the Nikon 28,, with modern coatings, are hard to beat. I have a couple including a E in AI mount that is sharp in the mid range, not quite wide open at 2.8, downside is the coatings are not as good as the pro level lens.

I think this Sigma has an electronic aperture so won't work on the F100 except wide open.

 

[Paul Howell]

Wasn't there an early version that was G compatible?

 

[paddycook]

Wasn't there an early version that was G compatible?

Not the Art version I don't think. Only the 50 and 35 Art work with the F100/F6 etc. They were the first two before the rest went electronic aperture.

 

[skahde]

Surprised that nobody has mentioned the new Voigtländer (Cosìna) 28mm f/2.8 Skopar yet.

Before I bought my second copy of the Nikkor 2.8/28 AIs early last year, I also considered the skopar but after reading this review I decided to just take what was available. The review summarizes its findings as follows: "The optical performance of both lenses is essentially on par – the differences in sharpness are far too insignificant to matter in practice."

I found a Nikkor locally which I could check before buying and it didn't disappoint, worked just like my first one.

 

[albireo]

Before I bought my second copy of the Nikkor 2.8/28 AIs early last year, I also considered the skopar but after reading this review I decided to just take what was available. The review summarizes its findings as follows: "The optical performance of both lenses is essentially on par – the differences in sharpness are far too insignificant to matter in practice."

Yes that AI-s 2.8 is fantastic too, if you find a great copy. If you own one already and are happy, there are probably no reasons to change.

For me personally - I prefer electronic Nikon SLRs from the 90s (my F90X is probably my most used 35mm camera) and the CPU contacts in the Voigtlaender (it's essentially an AF-D without AF so great for flash photography in the Nikon system) and the small size were very important factors in my decision.

 

[skahde]

For me personally - I prefer electronic Nikon SLRs from the 90s (my F90X is probably my most used 35mm camera) and the CPU contacts in the Voigtlaender (it's essentially an AF-D without AF so great for flash photography in the Nikon system) and the small size were very important factors in my decision.

That's a very good reason to choose a CPU-lens (Nikon called them P)! I have a very limited personal preference for F3, FM2, FE2 and FA. Everything else, i tried, you can have it, enjoy.

 

[dynachrome]

I have a number of examples of the six element 35/2.8 Nikkors and they are very good.

 

[dynachrome]

I am skeptical of the observation that these lenses and some others are "soft wide open." In most cases, the people who see this are using or testing the lenses on non-film cameras. These lenses were designed long before digital cameras were in use. With film, most are decently sharp even wide open. The reasons for using lenses wide open have changed over time. My first color film was Kodachrome II. In most cases when I used my standard lens wide open at f/1.4, it was to allow a high enough shutter speed for hand held use. Having a high enough shutter speed was much more important than whether the lens was slightly sharper at f/2. Today fast lenses are more often used wide open for artistic effect. If you ask me, selective focus is just overdone now. I have an 85/1.4 but I have never used it wide open for portraits.
When we are talking about older 28s or a 35s, fast or slow, these lenses were never meant for flat copy work. That type of work calls for a macro lens. Putting them on non-film cameras and using them up close and wide open does not use them to best advantage.

 

[skahde]

Field curvature can be a proplem on film too. My Hasselblad Distagon CT* 4/50 had to be stopped down to f11 2/3 to get sharp edges on humble landscapes, not even close up. CRC or FLE in Hasselblads case takes care of this close up as well as at infinity.