nikkor lens evaluation

[E. von Hoegh]

That 28/2 doesn't look right. Should be sharper and more contrasty even wide open. The 28/3.5 looks good. I have an Ai version of this lens and it's a great little lens and very affordable.

Agree. Haze can be surprisingly hard to spot, especially in some W.A. types; it takes a dim room and a point source of light. Haze on even just one surface can really ruin the contrast of a lens.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

to me it seems like it is the CRC or one group needs to be tightened. Inside these older Nikkor W.A there are scribe marks showing the alignment of the element or group retaining rings, which is basically how much to tighten or torque the retaining ring down. I can assure you it is possible to improve or degrade the performance of the lens by missing or hitting that original scribe mark.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

to me it seems like it is the CRC or one group needs to be tightened. Inside these older Nikkor W.A there are scribe marks showing the alignment of the element or group retaining rings, which is basically how much to tighten or torque the retaining ring down. I can assure you it is possible to improve or degrade the performance of the lens by missing or hitting that original scribe mark.

It could be the CRC mechanism, but I'd check for haze first before taking it apart. You'd be surprised how many lenses of "a certain age" have it, and how a seemingly tiny bit can degrade performance.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

yes I agree; some of those 28/2 elements are much smaller than you would think and even a tiny bit of haze can wreck.

 

[dynachrome]

After looking at the photosynthesis website it does not seem that the 28/3.5 Nikkor was recomputed with the AIS. It has the same number of elements and about the same dimensions. The only real changes were the focus throw and possibly the spacing between the aperture click stops. The 28/2.8 was recomputed when it went to AIS and had 8 elements and CRC.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

The 28mm f/3.5 was re-computed with a larger rear element, it gives more even illumination. Not sure exactly when, Roland's site says when it went to Ai but not sure. Bjorn Roslett also mentions it especially in context of IR and UV shooting. I will check my Eyes of Nikon and Joseph Cooper literature and get back to you.

 

[dynachrome]

According to The Complete Nikon System the change to the size of the rear element was with the AI lens in January of 1977. The rear element is not very much larger than the one on the earlier 'K' lens but it is larger. The AIS had the same formula but a shorter focus throw and slightly different aperture click stop spacing. In addition to my two AI models I have three other 28/3.5 Nikkors. One is actually a CM lens. The older lenses are also good but have less even illumination in the corners at or near wide open. Some people assume that if a lens has the same maximum aperture and focal length, it must be just a cosmetically different lens. That's not always the case. The 35/2.8 'K' and the first version of the 35/2.8 AI were different from the earlier 35/2.8s (6 elements instead of 7) and also different from the late AI and AIS (5 elements instead of 6). The six element version is better than all of the earlier models and also better than the later 5 element lenses. If you only shot at f/8 or f/11 the differences between some lenses would not be as apparent but at or near wide open the differences show.

 

[nwilkins]

thanks that's very interesting. Mine is a K series so the 6 element version I guess.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yes Dynachrome; the 35mm f/2.8 is a prime example of similar lenses having different formula. Oh, and yes that one is really really good.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes Dynachrome; the 35mm f/2.8 is a prime example of similar lenses having different formula. Oh, and yes that one is really really good.

I had a pre-ai 35/2.8 and a pre ai 35/2 (which was given to me with a stuck diaphragm. A screw has fallen out, jamming the diaphragm - Nikon's answer was "we no longer service lenses this old".)
Anyway, after fixing the f:2 and comparing them, it seemed that the faster lens had more even illumination, so I traded off the 2.8. I now wish I'd kept both, because the 35/2.8 balances perfectly (along with the 50/2 and 28/3.5) on Nikon F, F2, and Nikkormat bodies.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Formulas, coatings , computer optimizations.... buy a hand calculated Leica lens and use your entire life.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

If you go by http://www.destoutz.ch the 2.8/35 has been re-computed at least twice. (The link appears to be dead; a tragedy.)
Here's some good histories:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/12/index.htm
and
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/38/index.htm

And a look-at-all-my-stuff shot


Hard to believe when digital first swept through these things were practically being thrown away. I imagine a 1.4/35 being tossed into the crusher at the ARC...

 

[dynachrome]

Leica also changed the formulas of its lenses over time and certainly used computers to help in the redesigns when they became available. Some people got used to the signature of an older lens and preferred it to the newer one.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Mustafa please read the Nikkor One Thousand and One Nights; it points out that Nikon lenses were designed by individuals as well. Leica doesn't hold the patents to hand calculated lenses.

As per that site in reference to the Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 its been thru 3 optical versions (perhaps 4?). I have all three versions, and vastly prefer the K/Pre Ai.

 

[Xmas]

hand held 1/125 @ /5.6 you won't see much difference, when the light is less I'm in a coffee house...