Whch 28mm Nikkor to use

[Eagle Blue]

Once again I am asking advice on the best of 2 lenses, because I do not want to spend my time testing. I'd happy enough with the advice from this forum to make my final choice. I promise I'm not just trolling. I just want to gather the best of my surplus of stuff and gang it up with my beautiful new F2 and throw the rest back in my junk box.
First is a Nippon Kogaku 28mm/2.0 Nikkor-N ser. 281672 in near mint cond
other one is a Nippon Kogaku 28mm/3.5 Nikkor-H ser 672387 in good cond.
Thanks again.

See edit below.

 

[George Mann]

The first one.

 

[macfred]

I use the Non-Ai 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor-H Auto with my F2 (an early version with focus length information in cm) - I really like this lens.
My other 28mm is a Nikkor 28mm f/2 Ai-S ( 9 elements in 8 groups) which is a remarkable lens too.

 

[Eagle Blue]

I didn't mention in my OP what the objective was that I'm after. Sharpness. Little else matters.

 

[Cholentpot]

3.5 never did me any wrong.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Once again I am asking advice on the best of 2 lenses, because I do not want to spend my time testing. I'd happy enough with the advice from this forum to make my final choice. I promise I'm not just trolling. I just want to gather the best of my surplus of stuff and gang it up with my beautiful new F2 and throw the rest back in my junk box.
First is a Nippon Kogaku 28mm/2.0 Nikkor-N ser. 281672 in near mint cond
other one is a Nippon Kogaku 28mm/3.5 Nikkor-H ser 672387 in good cond.
Thanks again.

See edit below.

keep the f/2.they are rare in mint condition.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Had you utilised the link to Mir.com I posted in your last lens thread, you would know that your 28 f:2 has CRC and will therefore be the sharper lens overall.
I prefer the 28 f:3.5 for it's size and balance.

 

[macfred]

... I prefer the 28 f:3.5 for it's size and balance.

Same here - furthermore it's a beauty; a well-built lens with excellent optical quality.

 

[MattKing]

Sharpness. Little else matters.

As "sharpness" isn't universally defined, and perceived sharpness is a subjective measure that depends on a number of different factors that tend to be weighted differently by different people, I would ask which of those factors (macro contrast, micro contrast, edge contrast, fine detail resolution) are most important to you?

 

[Eagle Blue]

I guess I was looking for somebody to link some 45 year old Popular Photograpy tests or something. Then I'd pick one and throw the other back into the dungeon of "junk" gear. But this is all those years later and the contest now is which one has the cleanest glass. You really can't tell with a wide angle. It's exceedingly difficult to see trash and fog inside a wide angle. And wide angles are not for cleaning by the owner at home. There are too many glass surfaces to a wide angle, maybe 25-30. A bunch. You need cleanroom in a laboratory somewhere to do that right. Upon examination, the 2.0 one is much easier to inspect. The 3.5 one is nearly impossible to see if it's foggy or dirty inside. The 2.0 one appears to still be quite clean, whereas I can't tell with the 3.5, as the glass is so small. So I have to assume it may be foggy down in there. So I guess all these years later it is not the original lens tests that matter so much as actual glass clarity today. The 2.0 one just plain sparkles. It is labeled as Nippon Kogaku, which means it's before the day of multicoating. But I swear this one looks like it's multicoated. The 3.5 has that purplish glare to the glass. So unless someone can come along and slap hard test results down, I have to assume the F/2.0 one is the best choice. I am grateful though for whatever you all have to chime in with.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Your Nikkor H lens, has six elements. H = Hex.

As for the f/2 lens, it has 9 elements in 8 groups.

Edit: forgot to put in, N = Novem = 9 elements.

Mick.

 

[Toyo]

Look, if you have both the lenses, go out and take the kind of images that you always take - with each one. I know that you said that you didn't want to test them, but for the life of me I cannot understand why you would simply accept the opinion of strangers and not trust your own judgement.
Neither lens is a dog, and both will produce excellent images once you get to know them.
Go and make some images
T

 

[macfred]

[QUOTE="Toyo, post: 1986811, member: 75715"

... Go and make some images
T[/QUOTE]

You put it in a nutshell ...

 

[John_Nikon_F]

What Toyo said. Roll of Ektar 100, go shoot. With the 28/3.5, if you decide you want to throw it in the dungeon, instead pair it with your Nikkormat FTn. They're cheap, so, if it gets messed up, no big deal.

-J

 

[blockend]

I like the 28 3.5. It's built like a brick outhouse (yes, we did have one), and the viewing DoF is sufficient to not be distracted by a wafer thin plane of focus. For zone focusing, which is how many 28mm lenses are used, the old 3.5 is a peach and the nearest thing to a rangefinder view.