Review: Nikon PC-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 Flawed but Fascinating

[Durlacher]

Hi everyone,

I wasn’t quite sure where to post this, hopefully this is the right forum.

I’d like to share my latest video with you—a comprehensive, review of the Nikon PC-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5. Released in October 1980, it was at the time one of Nikon’s flagship—and most expensive—lenses.

Designed primarily for architectural photography, it is my conclusion (after extensive testing and real-world application) that the 28mm PC-Nikkor is unfit for that purpose, due to some fundamental optical shortcomings.

That being said, and despite its flaws, the lens renders images with a unique character that I’ve found deeply appealing, especially for documentary and street photography.

In fact, in many creative applications, I’d argue that perspective control / shift lenses like this—despite slower apertures and lack of autofocus—can surpass traditional primes in versatility, creativity and expressive potential.

This video is a follow-up to one I posted three years ago, but it goes much further in depth, both technically and practically.





It took some months to put this video together and I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Especially grateful for any constructive feedback on the presentation or information you would like to see included in future video lens reviews.

Thanks for watching,

Best wishes

Aleck

 

[4season]

It took some months to put this video together and I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Impressive! You are super-meticulous in your photography, presentation of facts, and video production.

Very much like how you present printed materials while taking advantage of the video medium to highlight specific items.

And I felt the use of multiple streams of video to illustrate concepts such as the operation of the lens controls was inspired.

After the introduction, I might have preferred a bit less of, or more subliminal, animated lens beauty shots, as you've already got good pacing and plenty of visual interest (but I felt this is a minor thing, and am not suggesting a re-edit!)

 

[Durlacher]

Impressive! You are super-meticulous in your photography, presentation of facts, and video production.

Very much like how you present printed materials while taking advantage of the video medium to highlight specific items.

And I felt the use of multiple streams of video to illustrate concepts such as the operation of the lens controls was inspired.

After the introduction, I might have preferred a bit less of, or more subliminal, animated lens beauty shots, as you've already got good pacing and plenty of visual interest (but I felt this is a minor thing, and am not suggesting a re-edit!)

Many thanks for replying and providing great feedback, it's very much appreciated. Noted on the use of beauty shots and will adjust for future reviews (I’ve got a couple in the works).

Minor or not, it all helps!

I am glad you liked the presentation of the printed materials, many hours of searching on Japanese camera forums and on the Wayback Machine to find these. I felt it gave a strong context to the lens and its period relevance, an alternative to ‘lazy’ footage showing someone simply holding and twirling a lens in their hands.

Thanks again and hope you’ll enjoy upcoming reviews – next posting is scheduled for later this month and it’s a fun one – disassembly of a mid 1960’s fixed lens rangefinder camera and adaptation of the lens to mirrorless application. Won’t say what it is yet, but I’ll give you a clue – it’s a 1.4 lens with hallucinogenic flaring characteristics!

 

[AZD]

Nice work, your video is very well done.

It’s the distortion that bugs me most. Such an unfortunate characteristic for a PC lens.

A few months back I fell down a rabbit hole looking at the work of Grant Mudford, who fits into the New Topographic category. Stark images of industrial and commercial environments. Many of his pictures were taken using 35mm cameras with PC lenses. I want to say I read somewhere they were Nikon, but don’t quote me. Anyway, the barrel distortion is obvious. The pictures are still great, but my brain can’t unsee the distortion.

 

[4season]

Many thanks for replying and providing great feedback, it's very much appreciated. Noted on the use of beauty shots and will adjust for future reviews (I’ve got a couple in the works).

Minor or not, it all helps!

I am glad you liked the presentation of the printed materials, many hours of searching on Japanese camera forums and on the Wayback Machine to find these. I felt it gave a strong context to the lens and its period relevance, an alternative to ‘lazy’ footage showing someone simply holding and twirling a lens in their hands.

Thanks again and hope you’ll enjoy upcoming reviews – next posting is scheduled for later this month and it’s a fun one – disassembly of a mid 1960’s fixed lens rangefinder camera and adaptation of the lens to mirrorless application. Won’t say what it is yet, but I’ll give you a clue – it’s a 1.4 lens with hallucinogenic flaring characteristics!

I worked in broadcast television for a number of years, and even now when I watch some talking-head videos, I think of edits I might want to make, because if they're merely going to talk, why bother with video, and if the audio production is lackluster, maybe it would be better as written word. But I suppose this is the age of TLDR!

Seems like a huge hint regarding the next video, but I've never tried the camera I think you're referring to, and hallucinogenic flare is a new concept to me

 

[ic-racer]

Does it work on a film camera?

 

[reddesert]

I will admit to partially talking BS here because (1) I had to skim some of the video and (2) I have one of these lenses but have not extensively used or tested it because the project hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Nevertheless, I think titling the video "Unfit for Purpose [?]" is, well, somewhat clickbaity. The lens clearly isn't perfect, but in order to talk about purpose, one has to ask what the purpose of the lens was, and is. In 1980 and even 2006, it wasn't to turn a 35mm camera into a Sinar 4x5. And it wasn't to perform well at large shifts on a full frame digital sensor (not yet common by 2006).

I am not sure what exactly the market for the PC lenses on 35mm was, but I suspect it was something like doing architectural / real estate photography in situations where a tripod might be possible but a full blown view camera was not practical. I doubt many people were trying to do, in 1980, the equivalent of architectural magazine full page prints with a PC lens on 35mm, because professionals didn't use 35mm at the time for that quality of photography.

With the digital sensor issue: this lens, when shifted, is quite far from telecentric (telecentric means rays strike the sensor perpendicular to its surface). I am not near my copy at the moment to see where the exit pupil is, but I would not be surprised if its quality degrades on digital at extreme field angles, similarly to the way that non-retrofocus wide angles sometimes give users problems on digital sensors. This seems to have to do with the Bayer filter and the detector sensitivity to incidence angle of the non-telecentric rays. Film, of course, didn't have these issues, and the designers of the lens couldn't have anticipated it. The next generation Nikon, Canon etc PC lenses, designed in the 2000s, should be expected to improve that issue.

 

[Durlacher]

Nice work, your video is very well done.

It’s the distortion that bugs me most. Such an unfortunate characteristic for a PC lens.

A few months back I fell down a rabbit hole looking at the work of Grant Mudford, who fits into the New Topographic category. Stark images of industrial and commercial environments. Many of his pictures were taken using 35mm cameras with PC lenses. I want to say I read somewhere they were Nikon, but don’t quote me. Anyway, the barrel distortion is obvious. The pictures are still great, but my brain can’t unsee the distortion.

Thanks, AZD for your kind message and for bringing the work of Grant Mudford to my attention.

Looking through Grant's images of buildings online, I would wager with 99.99% certainty that he's used the 28mm PC-Nikkor for many of his shots - the waviness in rendering is near identical to the results I obtained with my copy of the lens. Seeing the curved roof lines made me laugh - probably not Grant's desired intention!

Yes, the pictures are great, but as you've stated, once you see the distortion - you can't unsee it!

To the average viewer it's probably not a distraction, but for those that know it makes one question the suitability of this lens for its intended application.

My thoughts are that the 28mm PC-Nikkor is best suited to capturing a mood rather than an accurate technical reproduction of a scene.

 

[Durlacher]

I will admit to partially talking BS here because (1) I had to skim some of the video and (2) I have one of these lenses but have not extensively used or tested it because the project hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Nevertheless, I think titling the video "Unfit for Purpose [?]" is, well, somewhat clickbaity. The lens clearly isn't perfect, but in order to talk about purpose, one has to ask what the purpose of the lens was, and is. In 1980 and even 2006, it wasn't to turn a 35mm camera into a Sinar 4x5. And it wasn't to perform well at large shifts on a full frame digital sensor (not yet common by 2006).

I am not sure what exactly the market for the PC lenses on 35mm was, but I suspect it was something like doing architectural / real estate photography in situations where a tripod might be possible but a full blown view camera was not practical. I doubt many people were trying to do, in 1980, the equivalent of architectural magazine full page prints with a PC lens on 35mm, because professionals didn't use 35mm at the time for that quality of photography.

With the digital sensor issue: this lens, when shifted, is quite far from telecentric (telecentric means rays strike the sensor perpendicular to its surface). I am not near my copy at the moment to see where the exit pupil is, but I would not be surprised if its quality degrades on digital at extreme field angles, similarly to the way that non-retrofocus wide angles sometimes give users problems on digital sensors. This seems to have to do with the Bayer filter and the detector sensitivity to incidence angle of the non-telecentric rays. Film, of course, didn't have these issues, and the designers of the lens couldn't have anticipated it. The next generation Nikon, Canon etc PC lenses, designed in the 2000s, should be expected to improve that issue.

Many thanks for your input, you are absolutely right of course - this is certainly no substitute to a view camera and I doubt ever intended as being used for such in its time. The fact that you can generate larger panoramic images by shifting and rotating is merely one of many functions that can be achieved with this lens, but not overly practical, and pushes the lenses resolving power at the edges of the frame.

As you’ve noted, the main market for the lens (according to Nikon’s own marketing material) was architectural and applications where preservation of vertical lines is needed.

Very much appreciate the insight you have provided on application to digital sensors. This is a topic I had not included in the video but is of great relevance - just difficult to measure and quantify the effect and be able to make a generalisation for all camera sensors - it’s a topic that would be worthy of a separate video!

I would concur with your thoughts on the newer PC lenses, which would be designed for digital sensors.

 

[chuckroast]

Does it work on a film camera?

That's what it was originally made for.

 

[chuckroast]

I will admit to partially talking BS here because (1) I had to skim some of the video and (2) I have one of these lenses but have not extensively used or tested it because the project hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Nevertheless, I think titling the video "Unfit for Purpose [?]" is, well, somewhat clickbaity. The lens clearly isn't perfect, but in order to talk about purpose, one has to ask what the purpose of the lens was, and is. In 1980 and even 2006, it wasn't to turn a 35mm camera into a Sinar 4x5. And it wasn't to perform well at large shifts on a full frame digital sensor (not yet common by 2006).

I am not sure what exactly the market for the PC lenses on 35mm was, but I suspect it was something like doing architectural / real estate photography in situations where a tripod might be possible but a full blown view camera was not practical. I doubt many people were trying to do, in 1980, the equivalent of architectural magazine full page prints with a PC lens on 35mm, because professionals didn't use 35mm at the time for that quality of photography.

With the digital sensor issue: this lens, when shifted, is quite far from telecentric (telecentric means rays strike the sensor perpendicular to its surface). I am not near my copy at the moment to see where the exit pupil is, but I would not be surprised if its quality degrades on digital at extreme field angles, similarly to the way that non-retrofocus wide angles sometimes give users problems on digital sensors. This seems to have to do with the Bayer filter and the detector sensitivity to incidence angle of the non-telecentric rays. Film, of course, didn't have these issues, and the designers of the lens couldn't have anticipated it. The next generation Nikon, Canon etc PC lenses, designed in the 2000s, should be expected to improve that issue.

This. Products exist in their context.

In its time it was not "flawed", it was a powerful tool for a rather narrow set of use cases. The fact that we can't pixel peep 40 years later and get perfect results doesn't make the lens unusable or terrible.

That said, I enjoyed the meticulous research, analysis and observations. I just think the end conclusions are a bit on the unfair side.

 

[GregY]

This. Products exist in their context.

In its time it was not "flawed", it was a powerful tool for a rather narrow set of use cases. The fact that we can't pixel peep 40 years later and get perfect results doesn't make the lens unusable or terrible.

That said, I enjoyed the meticulous research, analysis and observations. I just think the end conclusions are a bit on the unfair side.

Well said CR.

 

[F4U]

I'm not sure what good a 28mm one would be of much use, due to its barrel distortion. A 35mm PC Nikkor sounds to me like it would not exhibit this flaw to such a degree. 35mm has its limitations. You can "fudge" a wee bit, but can only go so far before the view camera must come out.
A stock 4 cylinder 85hp engine can be turbo-supercharged on nitro, fuel injected, and all the bells and whistles to turn it into a 400 hp dragster. There's a limit to practicality. I would hate to think of what a 28mm P Nikkor would do to the photo of a building in an archictural trade digest.

 

[beemermark]

I've always been curious, does a 28mm PC give you more usable negative than a 24mm or even a 21mm lens?

 

[reddesert]

I've always been curious, does a 28mm PC give you more usable negative than a 24mm or even a 21mm lens?

If we're talking about using it on a 35mm camera (or a full frame digital) then I'm not sure that is a well posed question, since you get a 24x36mm image on all of them. If the question is really about angle of view, like for example: "How does the upward reach of the angle of view of the 28mm PC shifted up, compare to taking an image with a 24mm or 21mm lens and cropping off the bottom?" - that we can answer.

The maximum shift along the long dimension is supposed to be +/-8mm for best quality (mechanically limited to +/-11mm in any direction). With that +/-8mm, we can say it's imaging a 24x52mm area. That has a diagonal of 57mm, where 24x36mm has a diagonal of 43mm. 28/57 is about equal to 21/43. So the 28mm PC lens images a field of view about equal to a 21mm lens, but you have to pick some smaller area in that circle to place your framing. It would be simpler to just walk around with a 20-21mm lens and crop, but those have their own distortion issues and cropping 35mm gives you a smaller negative to work from.

 

[albireo]

Especially grateful for any constructive feedback on the presentation or information you would like to see included in future video

Thanks for putting this together.

Just a couple of thoughts -

It's a very long video. A huge portion of it is devoted to enumerating tech specs that can be googled by anyone within 30 seconds. I sadly lost interest around the 8 minutes mark. I'd edit this to make it more concise.

I didn't enjoy the droning AI-generated voice and would have preferred a human commenter, flaws, regional accent, warts and all.

Also I'm not sure the background low-fi beats music fits the wall of technical detail being offered.

On top of the above, and as the owner of this lens, I don't find it "fundamentally flawed" and I'm unable to find any hard evidence from Nikon that this lens was "designed for architecture" so I'm not seeing how it fails "spectacularly".

I use my copy (pretty rarely, to be honest) for forest photography in portrait mode where any distortion is largely irrelevant. I'm finding no issues with sharpness at f/8 or narrower on my copy. Corners do look worse than centre at max shift settings, which I rarely use.

I agree with you that this is a pretty unique lens with a few applications in which it shines, even today in 2025.

 

[MarkS]

When I was learning architectural photography in 1989, I bought a used copy of this lens. Of course the market demanded 4x5, so my thinking was "the customers will want slides, too". And once I got started in the business, I offered that option. But my clients weren't that interested in 35mm slides, so I rarely used it.
It was indeed designed and sold specifically for architecture work. Properly leveled and stopped down to f/11 it was acceptable, if not all that sharp. But there was nothing else like it- Nikon's 35mm PC lens was not wide enough for interiors. So if you needed it, it was what you had... but anyone working professionally used 4x5 with an assortment of wide-angle lenses.
These days, of course, the preferred setup is a Canon DSLR and their fine tilt/shift lenses. (Optical design has come a long way since the '70s.)
I don't shoot for architects anymore, but I still have my 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor- can't quite bring myself to sell it, and it doesn't take up much space. So it sits, waiting for its moment.

 

[4season]

I didn't enjoy the droning AI-generated voice and would have preferred a human commenter, flaws, regional accent, warts and all.

But I understand why OP may have wanted it that way: Ordinary speaking voices tend to sound flat and monotone in recordings.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Does it work on a film camera?

Yes and that is what I use it on. I have not used it on my Z7ii, so I cannot comment on my experiences.

 

[albireo]

There are many architectural photography schools in the world - consequently, underlying theories and definitions vary a great deal.

Where I come from, architectural photography is a vast superset of real estate photography, and it should not be confused with it. Not all architectural photography is, at its core, driven or motivated by marketing and sales.

Architectural photography as a creative/expressive (as opposed to commercial) endeavour, might benefit from, but does not really need, extremely well corrected lenses. It doesn't need large format in fact, or even tilt or shift or other movements.

Many of my favourite architectural photographers, according to this broad definition, have been using nothing else than a Leica M camera with a normal lens, or a TLR such as a Rolleiflex with a normal Planar, for most or all of their 50+ years careers. And they have produced incredibly good architectural photography.

They would do brilliant architectural photography with one of these 28mm PC Nikkors no doubt.

 

[ic-racer]

Yes and that is what I use it on. I have not used it on my Z7ii, so I cannot comment on my experiences.

It works ok? I have seen them for sale and wondered.

 

[Durlacher]

Thanks for putting this together.

Just a couple of thoughts -

It's a very long video. A huge portion of it is devoted to enumerating tech specs that can be googled by anyone within 30 seconds. I sadly lost interest around the 8 minutes mark. I'd edit this to make it more concise.

I didn't enjoy the droning AI-generated voice and would have preferred a human commenter, flaws, regional accent, warts and all.

Also I'm not sure the background low-fi beats music fits the wall of technical detail being offered.

On top of the above, and as the owner of this lens, I don't find it "fundamentally flawed" and I'm unable to find any hard evidence from Nikon that this lens was "designed for architecture" so I'm not seeing how it fails "spectacularly".

I use my copy (pretty rarely, to be honest) for forest photography in portrait mode where any distortion is largely irrelevant. I'm finding no issues with sharpness at f/8 or narrower on my copy. Corners do look worse than centre at max shift settings, which I rarely use.

I agree with you that this is a pretty unique lens with a few applications in which it shines, even today in 2025.

Thanks Albireo, sincerely appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback, negativities taken in good spirit and acknowledging your constructive intent.

The use of voice to text was a necessity for me, although I appreciate it may not be to everyone’s liking. I had begun with my naturally spoken voice, but every time I changed the script (which was a lot) I had to re-record and edit the audio. I found I was spending more time on audio recording and editing than producing meaningful information. I was on the verge of giving up before discovering an acceptable voice to text option.

However, I know where you are coming from, it’s not my ideal solution, it’s just the one that enables me to put the information together in an efficient time frame.

Noted on your comment ”I'm unable to find any hard evidence from Nikon that this lens was "designed for architecture" so I'm not seeing how it fails "spectacularly" - I did want to highlight for you the extract from the Nikon 28mm PC manual which states ”The PC-Nikkor is ideally suited to architectural and commercial photography”.

Thanks again for your input, I’ll definitely try and incorporate your suggestions in upcoming reviews.

 

[Durlacher]

But I understand why OP may have wanted it that way: Ordinary speaking voices tend to sound flat and monotone in recordings.

Thanks 4season for your understanding, more an act of necessity as I have explained in my reply to Albireo above. My hope is that the information, images and findings provide enough compelling content to outweigh the choice of audio format. I‘m particularly proud of the section on the application of shift lenses, there are so much that these lenses can do - and despite my ’unfit for purpose’ statement, I’m a huge fan of this lens!

 

[4season]

I‘m particularly proud of the section on the application of shift lenses, there are so much that these lenses can do - and despite my ’unfit for purpose’ statement, I’m a huge fan of this lens!

Oh yes, when used on my Sony A7R4, I need to stop my 35 mm PC-Nikkor down to f/11 for best results, but I can easily correct a bit of optical distortion in post-production, the electronic viewfinder remains bright even at small apertures, and best of all, I can shoot handheld. As a general-purpose lens, it's more useful than I might have supposed.

 

[Durlacher]

When I was learning architectural photography in 1989, I bought a used copy of this lens. Of course the market demanded 4x5, so my thinking was "the customers will want slides, too". And once I got started in the business, I offered that option. But my clients weren't that interested in 35mm slides, so I rarely used it.
It was indeed designed and sold specifically for architecture work. Properly leveled and stopped down to f/11 it was acceptable, if not all that sharp. But there was nothing else like it- Nikon's 35mm PC lens was not wide enough for interiors. So if you needed it, it was what you had... but anyone working professionally used 4x5 with an assortment of wide-angle lenses.
These days, of course, the preferred setup is a Canon DSLR and their fine tilt/shift lenses. (Optical design has come a long way since the '70s.)
I don't shoot for architects anymore, but I still have my 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor- can't quite bring myself to sell it, and it doesn't take up much space. So it sits, waiting for its moment.

Hi Mark, many thanks for your input - great to receive from someone having had professional experience in the day. I concur with your comment on the 35mm PC, it’s simply not wide enough for interior applications. I’m fortunate to have collected all the 28mm shift lens options made from various manufacturers (that I know of) and none perform exceptionally well as one would expect given their intended purpose and their much higher initial prices - the Leica / Schneider Super Angulon being particularly disappointing (video on that lens to come).

You are right on the Canon TSe options, these are exceptional lenses. The 17mm resolution is a little wanting at wider aperture settings, but the 24mm vii and the 50mm tilt shift lenses are absolutely superb. Expensive and a little heavy, but for accurate scene rendering that’s sharp, distortion free and without vignette - they are simply the best. I’d go so far as to say, if I could have only two lenses in my collection, I would choose the 24 and 50mm TSe’s - caveat being I rarely have a need for autofocus for the type images I enjoy capturing.

Full appreciation for your keeping your copy of the 28mm PC, I’m of the same sentiment now - just waiting for the right opportunity again knowing it’s a delightful lens to use in application and there’s definite character in rendering.