So Many Different Nikon 28mm's. Which is the better one?

Excalibur2 · Jan 15, 2009

PhotoJim said:
The Kiron 28 is an f/2.0. I owned one in Yashica-Contax mount for many years. It wasn't all that sharp at f/2, but it was pretty decent at middle apertures. I didn't find it to be as good as any Nikon I've owned, but for the money, it was tremendous value for money.

But now the Kiron 28mm f2 can reach silly prices, although one went on Ebay in the last 2 weeks for £16.

cherryrig · Jan 20, 2009

I'm still leading towards the 28mm E for some reason, don't know why really

Matt5791 · Jan 20, 2009

The F2.8 AIS 28mm with CRC (Close range correction) is not only an excellent lens, but one of the best Nikkors ever made (apparrently). This lens can focus so closely it substitutes for a macro lens.

The best and most informative review is here:

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

For the sort of prices this lens is availble for I really wouldn't bother with the E lens - it's a good lens, but miles behind the CRC, not only in image quality but build quality also.

Matt

cherryrig · Jan 20, 2009

Well I just saw some 28mm AIS CRC lens go for about over £100 which is a fair bit more than I wanted to pay really

PhotoJim · Jan 20, 2009

Do you need f/2.8?

If you're on a budget, the AI (or an AI-converted) 28/3.5 can be had for next to nothing, and it's very sharp.

Matt5791 · Jan 20, 2009

cherryrig said:
Well I just saw some 28mm AIS CRC lens go for about over £100 which is a fair bit more than I wanted to pay really

If your budget is minimal then go for the E. I have a friend with one.

But hunt around and keep looking and you'll find a poorly described CRC lens - I bought mine together with a 50mm AIS f1.4 AND an FE2 ("broken" - it needed batteries) for £110 in total.

cherryrig · Jan 20, 2009

I tried out my mates 28mm f/3.5. Nice lens and stuff but I think I'd rather have that extra stop really and saves on a slower shutter end of the day

Matt5791 · Jan 21, 2009

I think that is a good idea - just looking at the reviews on the link in my earlier post, it seems there are quite a few varients of this lens - note: if you get a non-AI lens you have to stop the lens down each time you take a meter reading, ie. press the depth of field preview and set the exposure whilst holding this down. It can be a pain this as I have a 20mm non-AI lens - you can get them converted, at a price, or just put up with the the stop down metering - it depends on what type of photography you mainly do.

Although saying this I have used my 20mm at weddings - but it is a pain when you are under pressure.

The advantage of non-Ai lenses is the often they are excellent lenses (eg. the 20mm UD Nikkor) for a lot less money than AI lenses.

PhotoJim · Jan 21, 2009

I think you might be surprised at how infrequently a 28mm lens is used at maximum aperture. I shoot mine at f/8, give or take a stop, probably 90% of the time.

f/3.5 is 2/3 of a stop slower than f/2.8... significant but not debilitating.

The quandary is this: sharper for your 90% at f/8, or sacrifice a little quality on those for the 10% where you need faster than f/3.5?

A 28/3.5 would buy you some time to save up for a 28/2, which is a magical lens. Something to think about.

cherryrig · Jan 21, 2009

Hmmmm true

So is a 28mm E that bad then? As my 50mm is a E and seems like a nice lens

PhotoJim · Jan 21, 2009

The 28/2.8E isn't as good as the 50 is.

I find it's a decent lens, but it isn't nearly as sharp as Nikon's other options.

It may well be satisfactory to you - unfortunately the only way to know is to try it.

cherryrig · Jan 21, 2009

There is a 28mm AIS on eBay at the moment with like 20mins left that has gone up to over £100

Which to me seems quite steep for a old lens, but I guess it's down to the fact that it's meant to be soo good

dynachrome · Jan 22, 2009

My 28mm Nikkors include a 2.8cm f/3.5, an f/3.5 Nikkor H, an f/3.5 'K' and two f/3.5 AI lenses. I use mostly one of the AI lenses and I find it to be quite good. The f/2.8 AIS is supposed to be better close up because of its floating element system but if I have to get close I'll just use one of my many 55mm Micro Nikkors. I don't undertand why people pay so much for the f/2.8 AIS lens when a 28/2 is available for the same price or less and is also supposed to be excellent.

Other nice 28mm lenses which will fit your camera inclue the 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, 28/2 Vivitar (22XXX... - watch for oil on the blades), Vivitar 28/2 (28XXX...), Kiron 28/2, Kiron 28/2.8 and vivitar 28/1.9 Series 1 (I don't remember whether this one came in AI mount). My favorite fast 28s are the 28/2 Canon FD SSC and the 28/1.8 Konica US Hexanon.

cherryrig · Jan 23, 2009

Yea I'm not too fussed with getting up close with my lens to be fair as I have a 60mm Micro for that actaully.

I just want something that is nice and wide and fast(ish)

28mm AIS are just going for silly money to me it seems

24mm maybe a cheaper pick???

removed-user-1 · Feb 3, 2009

The 28/3.5 is a much better lens than the price suggests, especially the later models. Having said that, my favorite wide angle is the 24/2.8.

chop61 · Feb 5, 2009

I was thinking about a 28, but then I decided on a BGN 24mm from KEH for $108. It's beautiful!

Matt5791 · Feb 7, 2009

cherryrig said:
Yea I'm not too fussed with getting up close with my lens to be fair as I have a 60mm Micro for that actaully.

I just want something that is nice and wide and fast(ish)

28mm AIS are just going for silly money to me it seems

24mm maybe a cheaper pick???

24mm will cost you more generally.

Also the AIS 28mm are going for silly money - silly cheap. This lens new is £615 at Grays of Westminster.

PhotoJim · Feb 7, 2009

If the AI-S 28 is too much, get an AF-D. It's spectacular optically (I had one for a few years before selling it to get a 20-35/2.8D) and I would easily own one again. They cost about $200 US new. The AI-S outperforms it at very close focus distances, but otherwise there is little to choose between them.

mawz · Feb 8, 2009

Quality on the slow 28's goes -> AI-S, AF-D, AI/Pre-AI (multi-coated 3.5 marginally better than the 2.8), AF, E.

The E series primes get better as they get longer. The 28's the worst and the 135's the best (with the 100 a close second).

katphood · Feb 13, 2009

I just ran some tests; my 28 2.8 AIS vs. my 28 3.5 K (AI'd). BTW, I used both lenses on a Canon EOS body (with half-frame sensor) via the same adaptor. Thus, focus depended on my eyes only w/ neither a split prism nor a hot focus point to rely on. On a good Nikon film camera, the results might be a bit different.

Note also that my tests were oriented toward my interests: nature photography. I often shoot into the sun so I always test for flare. I also often use scale focusing stopped down. Notice however that much of my testing was indoors where I can control the light. It's a windy, partly cloudy day, making lens testing a little hard.

So here's my entirely subjective conclusion:

Indoors, close focus: 28 f3.5 K is noticeably sharper at every aperture from 3.5 to 11 (did not go beyond that). Even the blurry areas (beyond DOF) were sharper on the 3.5.

Indoors, lenses focused at their hyperfocal distance: roughly equal in the centers, a slight advantage to the AIS in the corners.

Outdoors, lenses focused at their hyperfocal distance: roughly equal in the centers and corners. Some advantage to the AIS on objects in the infinity distance.

Flare: Advantage to the 3.5 K (AI'd) when including the sun in the frame. Both flare a bit, but I didn't find the 3.5 to be objectionable at all whereas the 2.8 can have some large annoying zombie blobs growing out of the sun.

Notes:

- For those of you that scale focus, the 3.5 is much easier to use than the 2.8. I noticed the hash marks on the chrome are farther apart on my 3.5 than the 2.8. I appreciate that.

- Build quality is excellent on both lenses.

- Both are multicoated, but since the AIS I have may have been manufactured 10-15 years later than the K, I suspect its multicoating might be, I dunno, better?

Lastly, I got my 3.5 AI'd K lens on eBay for $65 + shipping. I believe I got the AIS on KEH for about $200. In terms of bang for the buck, a big advantage for the older lens!

nicefor88 · May 3, 2009

I personally believe the 35 f2 is a much better choice. Less distortion.

Russ - SVP · Apr 9, 2020

jmal said:
I have a recently purchased 28 2.8 AI. It is well built and leaves nothing to be desired in terms od the image quality.

I just snagged one. Have yet to use it. You really like it?

Thanks

MattKing · Apr 9, 2020

11 years since the last post.
Aren't the undead wonderful ?

jimjm · Apr 9, 2020

Kiron Kid said:
I just snagged one. Have yet to use it. You really like it?

Thanks

I had the 28/2.8 AI for about 10 years and took a lot of great photos with it. Replaced it with the AIS version which is a bit sharper (not a huge difference), has less distortion and CRC, which is really nice.
They're both good lenses. I wouldn't say the AIS is twice as good as the AI, but it is 2x the price these days

randyB · Apr 10, 2020

Somehow I wound up with 3 28mm Nikkors, 2-3.5's and a ai 2.8. I rarely used them as I like my AF 24mm better but I decided to test them to see if there was much difference between them. I do real world tests ei. actual film, PanF developed in Pyrocat, then enlarged to about 14 x 18 and printed a section on 4x5 paper. I saw virtually no difference between the lenses. All produced exceptional images. I decided to keep the 2.8 as it was a tiny bit brighter in the viewfinder. Of course sample variation can make some better then others, you may need to do your own tests.

So Many Different Nikon 28mm's. Which is the better one?

removed-user-1

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency