please very urgent:Nikon 28 f2.8 or Nikon 28 f3.5

peters8 · Feb 8, 2013

Hi guys!I've to choose between these two Nikon lenses...

28mm f 2.8 or 3.5...tomorrow I've to give the answer to the seller if I really want one of these glasses.
It's not an important element to me the brigtness of the lens.If the 3,5 is better than the 2.8 I'll buy it!...I'm waiting for opinions and advices from you please!Don't let me alone in this choise please!
Thanks.Regards

PhotoJim · Feb 8, 2013

There are several versions of the f/2.8. The newer manual focus versions are better than the older ones. The autofocus ones are slightly inferior, but the D is very good nonetheless.

The f/3.5s are good - the AI especially - but, of course, 2/3 stop slower.

Personally I'd take a good, clean f/2.8 over an f/3.5, assuming the same pricing, but if the f/3.5 is sufficiently cheaper it would certainly do the job.

MattKing · Feb 8, 2013

Don't forget that, even if you don't often shoot photos using the lens' maximum aperture, you will almost always be using the maximum aperture to compose and focus.

It can be harder to focus a 28mm lens - you might find that you would really appreciate the extra 2/3 of a stop of viewfinder brightness and narrower depth of field that the f/2.8 lens offers.

tkamiya · Feb 8, 2013

If I'm not mistaken you are talking about lenses that are good 30+ year old. If I remember correctly, back then, Nikon did not make consumer grade lenses and professional grade lenses. They made LENSES - just one grade, pretty much. So everything else being equal, f/2.8 would be a better lens.

But.... are they really in equally good condition? What are the price differences? Being a wide lens, focusing isn't all that critical. Plus, you are going to use this lens on a film camera, so you won't be doing crazy things like viewing the image at a ridiculous magnification and stress over sharpness....

If I were in your place, I'd get the f/2.8 if the price premium is small and it is in good shape. Otherwise, I'd get f/3.5 and be happy.

Dan Fromm · Feb 8, 2013

Peter, the late Geoffrey Crawley wrote a book on the Nikon system in which he made the point that faster Nikkors of a focal length were better than slower Nikkors of the same focal length. He saw the f/3.5ers as consistently worse at all apertures than the equivalent f/2.8ers. If money's not a problem, get the 28/2.8.

henry finley · Feb 8, 2013

Dan Fromm said:
Peter, the late Geoffrey Crawley wrote a book on the Nikon system in which he made the point that faster Nikkors of a focal length were better than slower Nikkors of the same focal length. He saw the f/3.5ers as consistently worse at all apertures than the equivalent f/2.8ers. If money's not a problem, get the 28/2.8.

That's odd. It goes against widely excepted belief that the slower, the sharper.

LiamG · Feb 8, 2013

henry finley said:
That's odd. It goes against widely excepted belief that the slower, the sharper.

I think it's a vast simplification- it (faster Nikkor is better) might be mostly true in this case, but not always; Nikon has made so many lenses, there is always a counter-example: lets say it's a 28 f3.5 Ai & a 28 f2.8 series E. It's a vast system, which is both a blessing and a curse, even an expert can get confused about some Nikon lens or another.

Richard S. (rich815) · Feb 8, 2013

Here's some great info that should help:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/index.htm

Aristotle80 · Feb 8, 2013

They are probably both great lenses. I've shot a number of old Nikkors in the fast and slow version, and they were all great. At the same price take the faster one. I wouldn't pay a huge premium for the faster one, but a little one would be fine. Can't lose either way.

semi-ambivalent · Feb 9, 2013

henry finley said:
That's odd. It goes against widely excepted belief that the slower, the sharper.

The f/2.8 has floating element(s), my Nikon lens booklet does not mention the f/3.5 having it.

To the OP: There's a lot that goes in to your equation: Film, typical use scenario, cost. If you shoot Tri-X or don't enlarge very big then it probably doesn't matter. If the f/2.8 is an AiS version (orange painted minimum f-stop) and you can swallow the price get it; it is better all around than the f/3.5. Otherwise the f/3.5 will be fine. Any signs of damage on either? Why the rush?

You pays your money and you takes your chances. Good luck.

s-a

perkeleellinen · Feb 9, 2013

The difference on your print may only be visible at massive enlargements or if you are in the habit of taking a magnifying glass to your work.

Perhaps 3.5 means a smaller and lighter lens - that would sway me more than quality issues on, say, murals or pixel attributes.

Excalibur2 · Feb 9, 2013

It seems from this guy's opinion you have a better chance of a good copy if you choose the f2.8

http://www.archiphoto.com/personal pages/Nikon.html

markbarendt · Feb 9, 2013

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

narsuitus · Feb 9, 2013

I have the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS and the pre-AI Nikon 28mm f/3.5. Both are excellent lenses. I prefer the f/2.8 for shooting landscapes and general subjects. I prefer the f/3.5 mounted in reverse position on bellows for shooting close-ups and macros.

I paid more for my f/3.5 than I did for my f/2.8.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6179456359/

Chan Tran · Feb 9, 2013

I own the AI version of the f/3.5 for like 5 or 6 years. I lost it along with the Nikon F2AS. I currently have the f/2.8 version and I can't say which one is sharper but there is one thing that it seems the pics I take recently are not as sharp as those I took in the late 70's and early 80's. It's me or it's my lenses I don't know. So there Peter I hope I have an answer for you but I don't.

OldBodyOldSoul · Feb 10, 2013

Ask the seller to tell you the serial number of the 28. Then go here: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
Click on 28 at the top and find your lens type by the serial number. If the lens is AI-S, take the 28. If not then I say it doesn't matter unless you have a preference when it comes to focal length.
f/2.8 AI-S has CRC and is incredibly sharp when shooting close. To make things sweeter, its MFD is only 8in (20cm). As opposed to most other wide Nikkors, the way f/2.8 AI-S renders the OOF areas is very pleasing (though this is highly subjective) and it has very nice colors.

Salem · Feb 10, 2013

what camera are you going to use it with? if the camera has a bright finder and split focusing screen then both would be fine. If, on the other hand, the finder is dim or you don't like split focusing then I would recommend the 2.8. The only 28 I have is a non-ai 3.5 and I find it harder to focus than the 24/2.8.

dorff · Feb 10, 2013

The 28/2.8 AIS with close focus of 0.2 m is one of the best lenses Nikon ever made. I have this lens, and the 28/3.5 AI. Both are sharp at infinity at all apertures, but the 2.8 is sharper all the way to closest focus, and the fact that it focuses so close is a major advantage for some types of photography. I would not hesitate to get the 2.8 if it is for normal photography. The 3.5 is better for infrared, though. It is a nice lens, but in terms of usefulness not in the same class as the 2.8 AIS.

dynachrome · Feb 12, 2013

This question has come up before in other forums. I have two 28/3.5 AIs, a 28/3.5 'K', an H and a cm. They are all good. The 'K' kas better coating that the two older lenses. The AI lenses are very good. It doesn't matter to me that the 28/2.8 AIS has CRC and is sharper in the close range. I always carry a macro lens anyway. All ofthe 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors from the Micro Nikkor Auto compensating lens to the 55/2.8 AIS are much sharper than the 28/2.8 AIS in the close range and have much less distortion. If I need the effect of closer focusing with a 28 I can use a 28/1.8 Konica UC Hexanon. It also has a floating element design and is faster. The old 5mm Canon manual extension tube can be used with a number of Canon 28mm lenses. At the right price I wouldn't mind adding a 28/2.8 AIS to my Nikon collection but I wouldn't expect any improvement over the 28/2.8 AIS in regular shooting and I also wouldn't expect it to be nearly as good as a Micro Nikkor in the close-up range.

dorff · Feb 14, 2013

dynachrome said:
This question has come up before in other forums. I have two 28/3.5 AIs, a 28/3.5 'K', an H and a cm. They are all good. The 'K' kas better coating that the two older lenses. The AI lenses are very good. It doesn't matter to me that the 28/2.8 AIS has CRC and is sharper in the close range. I always carry a macro lens anyway. All ofthe 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors from the Micro Nikkor Auto compensating lens to the 55/2.8 AIS are much sharper than the 28/2.8 AIS in the close range and have much less distortion. If I need the effect of closer focusing with a 28 I can use a 28/1.8 Konica UC Hexanon. It also has a floating element design and is faster. The old 5mm Canon manual extension tube can be used with a number of Canon 28mm lenses. At the right price I wouldn't mind adding a 28/2.8 AIS to my Nikon collection but I wouldn't expect any improvement over the 28/2.8 AIS in regular shooting and I also wouldn't expect it to be nearly as good as a Micro Nikkor in the close-up range.

You'd be surprised. I have a 28/2.8 AI. Compared to the AIS it is a dog. I also have the 55/3.5 Auto Micro. It is as sharp as the 28/2.8 AIS in the close range, but not sharper. It peaks at 1:10 magnification. There are sharper lenses in the 1:1 to 1:3 range. If you haven't used the lens in question extensively, how can you make assertions about it?

peters8 · Feb 14, 2013

Hi friends,thank you for all these replies!
I eventually bought the 28 3.5 28 2.8 because the seller already sold it, so now it isn't important to talk about the 2.8 versions.
Rather, I have to ask you one thing: I mounted this lens on my nikon fe and I noticed that looking into the viewer, the numbers of the diaphragms are not visible.This detail it isn't important to me,but I hope this detail doesn't mean this lens is not suitable for my Nikon FE?
Thank you very much!

Steve Smith · Feb 14, 2013

Excalibur2 said:
It seems from this guy's opinion you have a better chance of a good copy if you choose the f2.8

Don't get a copy, get the real thing!

Steve.

dorff · Feb 14, 2013

peters8 said:
Hi friends,thank you for all these replies!
I eventually bought the 28 3.5 28 2.8 because the seller already sold it, so now it isn't important to talk about the 2.8 versions.
Rather, I have to ask you one thing: I mounted this lens on my nikon fe and I noticed that looking into the viewer, the numbers of the diaphragms are not visible.This detail it isn't important to me,but I hope this detail doesn't mean this lens is not suitable for my Nikon FE?
Thank you very much!

You have a pre-AI lens. The lens should have a cut into the rear part of the aperture ring, allowing it to engage the AI meter coupler on the camera. If it doesn't have this, then it is not too difficult to have it AI converted. But you should not do it yourself unless you know exactly what you are doing. The FE's meter coupler can be lifted up by pressing down the button next to it. That way a non-AI lens can mount. But it will not give you stopped down metering - you have to do that manually. So unless you shoot at full aperture, do not use the camera in aperture priority mode. Switch it to manual.

please very urgent:Nikon 28 f2.8 or Nikon 28 f3.5

peters8

PhotoJim

MattKing

Moderator

tkamiya

Dan Fromm

henry finley

LiamG

Richard S. (rich815)

Aristotle80

semi-ambivalent

perkeleellinen

Excalibur2

markbarendt

narsuitus

Attachments

Chan Tran

OldBodyOldSoul

Salem

dorff

dynachrome

dorff

peters8

Steve Smith

dorff

please very urgent:Nikon 28 f2.8 or Nikon 28 f3.5

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency