Your 28 or 24mm lens suggestion for Nikon F please!

[benveniste]

Disclaimer -- I have a non-multicoated AI-converted 28mm f/2 listed for sale.

Three questions:

1. How often do you use a lens hood?
2. Do you need "rabbit ears?"
3. What's your budget?

A lens hood is your first line of defense against flare. While modern coating can reduce the effect of flare, it's far from a cure.

If you need rabbit ears, your best bet would like be a late serial number 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 AI-s, or a Voigtländer 28mm f/2.8 Skopar The Nikkors made after about 2000 would use Nikon's SIC technology, which is an incremental improvement over their prior NIC tech. All three are solid performers, and at the apertures you plan on using the difference between those lenses and one of the Zeiss F-mount lenses would likely be undetectable in real world shots.

If you have a "comfortable" budget, the Zeiss 28mm f/1.4 Otus and Zeiss 25mm f/1.4 Milvus are just about the state of the art. I couldn't justify either one, so on my Nikon FA I use a Zeiss 25mm f/2 ZF.2 and a 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom to cover those focal lengths. The ZF.2 is a very nice lens, but prices seem to have risen since I bought mine.

 

[Focomatter]

that sounds good in theory, however modern coatings are so much better than the old ones, that in reality, modern lenses flare a lot less, even if the have 4 times as many glas elements.

like the Otus 28mm has 16 elements in 13 groups and will have much higher contrast than any triplet.

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/photography/datasheets/en/otus-lenses/datasheet-zeiss-otus-1428.pdf

No experience with the Otus but do have the Nikkor 28/2 as well as 28/3.5 so cannot comment, as well, the Nikkor MF lenses with multicoating do not have the latest in lens coatings.

 

[GregY]

Got the images looking normal in Lightroom if I brought the highlights all the way down. I'm just not used to such radical moves like this! Maybe my shutter speeds are a bit off/slow yielding denser negs?

I'd get the camera serviced. If you're predominantly shooting outdoors....& stopped down, get a lens hood. The Nikkor & Pentax lenses with 2.8/3.5 apertures are smaller, lighter. and were often overlooked, but give fine results.

 

[250swb]

Seems a bit extreme to buy a new lens because of flare and contrast, buy a lens hood and change your processing. What do you imagine people used to do with this lens, leave it on the shelf and wait for Nikon to invent another?

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I've been using the early single-coated 28/3.5 on my F2 and Nikkormat - my pro parents bought this lens in 1968, it had heavy use for decades, but it's never even needed a CLA. It's not the sharpest lens out there, though it was considered a revolutionary design in its day. (And to whoever above said it'll be sharper below f/16, it only goes to f/16. Unlike most sixties Nikkor lenses, it only has five f-stops, not six or seven.)

Anyway, I've never had any contrast or flare issues using this lens with Tri-X and D-76... and that's with mainly just estimating exposure. These scans are from the last couple of years. I took the shot of the backlit trees specifically to see how much the lens would flare... and it didn't.

 

[chuckroast]

I've been using the early single-coated 28/3.5 on my F2 and Nikkormat - my pro parents bought this lens in 1968, it had heavy use for decades, but it's never even needed a CLA. It's not the sharpest lens out there, though it was considered a revolutionary design in its day. (And to whoever above said it'll be sharper below f/16, it only goes to f/16. Unlike most sixties Nikkor lenses, it only has five f-stops, not six or seven.)

Anyway, I've never had any contrast or flare issues using this lens with Tri-X and D-76... and that's with mainly just estimating exposure. These scans are from the last couple of years. I took the shot of the backlit trees specifically to see how much the lens would flare... and it didn't.

Solid work!

 

[Paul Howell]

Although my local camera repair will not work on an F, well they will reseal, but he did agree to test the shutter so I would know how off it is.

 

[chuckroast]

Although my local camera repair will not work on an F, well they will reseal, but he did agree to test the shutter so I would know how off it is.

Both Dave Easterwood in Michigan and Frank Marshman (CameraWiz) in Virginia will do complete
F body overhauls. I've used them both for various project and both are terrific. Frank did a couple F bodies for me a while back.

Just be prepared to wait a while. These guys are semi-retired and you can expect 1-2 month turnaround on stuff. Youxin Ye - arguably the best Leica guy around - is quoting 5-6 month
waiting times, though he does offer same week service for a 30% premium on the service
fee.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thanks for the referral, I think I will send my F in for overhaul. It is a late model, 73.

 

[ericB&W]

Recently got an old Nikon F and a Nikkor pre-Ai 28/3.5 lens. I’ve been shooting for a while on a C/Y camera with a C/Y Zeiss 28mm lens and love its look. I shot a few test shots with the Nikkor and processed how I always do and scanned the negs. Off the bat the photos with the Nikkor are waaaay contrastier and the highlights are almost completely blown out, plus when aimed at a sunny area there is a lot of (I’ll be it kind of cool) flare. I know I could probably change the way I shoot or process to account for this, but I think I’d like to just get a better piece of glass instead. I’ve read good things about the Nikkor 28/2, but the thing is, I will be using this outside and only from like 5.6-16 or 22, I dont really need f/2 or 2.8. But I think I’m looking for a more modern lens with good coating - please, let me know if you have any suggestions of a high quality lens but without all these functions i wont end up using!

First four shots are with the Nikkor, fifth shot is with the C/Y 28mm - both rolls processed in the same Paterson tank

I have always used Nikon 24 mm 2,8 ais and is a great lens with beautiful warm colors,
at f8 is sharp edge to edge ,
i've always read that 28mm - 2,8 is stellar, probably one of the best Nikon lens of all times , a little bit better than 24, both have CRC correction.
For a very low price can be found also a Sigma superwide 24mm that is also a very good lens ,
is said to be a Leica lens design , the colors anyway are colder than Nikon and tend to blue-green.

 

[chuckroast]

I have always used Nikon 24 mm 2,8 ais and is a great lens with beautiful warm colors,
at f8 is sharp edge to edge ,
i've always read that 28mm - 2,8 is stellar, probably one of the best Nikon lens of all times , a little bit better than 24, both have CRC correction.
For a very low price can be found also a Sigma superwide 24mm that is also a very good lens ,
is said to be a Leica lens design , the colors anyway are colder than Nikon and tend to blue-green.

The 24mm f/2.8 used to be my goto for 50% or more of my 35mm film shooting. Then I discovered the 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S ... wow ... just WOW. My 24 is now getting dusty.

 

[Oldwino]

The 28/2.8 is really good at close to mid-distances (like street photography distances), but lacks a little bit at infinity resolution-wise, so not so good as a landscape lens. I've read the 28/2 is better at infinity and less so close up.
The 24/2 is pretty darn good overall, and I would agree that the 20/2.8 is just flat out great for that focal length. I sold my 24 when I got the 20.

 

[chuckroast]

The 28/2.8 is really good at close to mid-distances (like street photography distances), but lacks a little bit at infinity resolution-wise, so not so good as a landscape lens. I've read the 28/2 is better at infinity and less so close up.
The 24/2 is pretty darn good overall, and I would agree that the 20/2.8 is just flat out great for that focal length. I sold my 24 when I got the 20.

I am no longer selling my Ai-S lenses. The really clean ones are getting to be silly expensive and I rather hang on to them for a rainy day I do trade up, though. I sold a pristine 35mm f/2.8 in favor of a less pretty 35mm f/1.4 that had perfect glass but was cheap because the aperture adjust was stiff. (That took me less than 90 minutes to fix and only that long because I had to learn how to do it

But generally, I am hanging on to my very good, clean stuff unless I am certain I will never want it again. I do have my M645 system on the market on the assumption that, if it's supposed to sell, it will

 

[GregY]

The 28/2.8 is really good at close to mid-distances (like street photography distances), but lacks a little bit at infinity resolution-wise, so not so good as a landscape lens. I've read the 28/2 is better at infinity and less so close up.
The 24/2 is pretty darn good overall, and I would agree that the 20/2.8 is just flat out great for that focal length. I sold my 24 when I got the 20.

I always used the 24mm 2.8 as my favoured wide angle when i was using SLRs and bypassed the 28mm. The 20mm with it's high price and larger filter size was a pipe dream for me. When i went to rangefinders i gravitated to the 21mm on the Leica...

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have a Nikon 24MM f2.8 Ai that works well for me.

 

[jimjm]

Even the older pre-AI lenses will perform well in harsh light as long as you take care with the position of light sources and use a hood. 24mm gives a more pronounced wide-angle effect than the 28mm, so that's something to keep in mind. I found the 28/2.8 AIS to be an improvement over the AI-version.
Both these shots were taken with very bright sun just outside the frame, which can sometimes lessen contrast. Both lenses seemed to handle it pretty well.

Pre-AI 24/2.8, Nikon F on Tri-X

AIS 28/2.8, Nikon F3 on TMax100

 

[chuckroast]

Even the older pre-AI lenses will perform well in harsh light as long as you take care with the position of light sources and use a hood. 24mm gives a more pronounced wide-angle effect than the 28mm, so that's something to keep in mind. I found the 28/2.8 AIS to be an improvement over the AI-version.
Both these shots were taken with very bright sun just outside the frame, which can sometimes lessen contrast. Both lenses seemed to handle it pretty well.

Pre-AI 24/2.8, Nikon F on Tri-X



AIS 28/2.8, Nikon F3 on TMax100

First of all, both of those are absolutely great images. Well seen and well executed.

Secondly, I agree with you. We tend to get overly picky about having the very best/latest/slickest optics when it is rarely the case that these are the limiting factor. In the case of 35mm, the format itself places real restrictions on the upper bound of image quality. (You can make a Leica owner with $20K in equipment cry when you show them what a $250 Mamiya TLR or 645 can do

I also own a pre-AI but AI-converted 135mm f/3.5 Nikkor-Q. It works just fine. Similarly, I own an uncoated Leica 50mm f/3.5 in LTM and it is razor sharp and a great performer. (And it's now for sale, b/c I just finally bought a Summicron if anyone is interested .

The truth is that you have to understand the limits of your equipment, whether it is format, lens, or whatever. I've produced very nice 11x14 prints from 35mm negatives but it took extra care to ensure it was sharp and printed well.

I see people running around with $6000 digital Leicas or the latest Nikon Hornblaster 6000 but you know what I rarely see? A tripod, a cable release, and a lens shade - the most fundamental tools for high quality images, none of which cost very much.

If you go back and look at the work of our ancestors, whether it was a 1930s press photographer using a Speed Graphic, or a Vietnam era Nikon F shooter in the swamps of Vietnam, or a a Nat Geo shooter using Leicas in the middle of some remote jungle, or ... you see people using cameras, optics, and formats that arguably far less sophisticated than what we have today and largely producing phenomenal images.

Take a look here for many examples:

https://www.shorpy.com

(Just for fun, do a search on "35mm")

 

[Camerarabbit]

Even the older pre-AI lenses will perform well in harsh light as long as you take care with the position of light sources and use a hood. 24mm gives a more pronounced wide-angle effect than the 28mm, so that's something to keep in mind. I found the 28/2.8 AIS to be an improvement over the AI-version.
Both these shots were taken with very bright sun just outside the frame, which can sometimes lessen contrast. Both lenses seemed to handle it pretty well.

Pre-AI 24/2.8, Nikon F on Tri-X
View attachment 354214


AIS 28/2.8, Nikon F3 on TMax100
View attachment 354215

Really nice shots, thanks for the examples! I know they're different lighitng scenarios but the ai-s lens feels to have more of the quality Im going for - a little sharper, less matt feeling in the shadow areas.

 

[jimjm]

Really nice shots, thanks for the examples! I know they're different lighitng scenarios but the ai-s lens feels to have more of the quality Im going for - a little sharper, less matt feeling in the shadow areas.

Thanks Chuck and Cameron! Yep, overall the better coatings on an AIS lens will be beneficial in all situations. Some good deals can be had on the older lenses, though, so many of them are worth trying as well.
Both shots are scans of wet prints, so there's been some burning/dodging and contrast manipulation, especially in the first shot. Tri-X definitely has a grittier look and TMax seems to have smoother tonality.

 

[toadhall]

Thanks. I believe the Nikkor H pre-AI is single coated.

The non ai lenses with letters, ie: H, S, P etc are single coated. The H.C., S.C., P.C. etc are multi-coated.