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

[Camerarabbit]

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

 

[Focomatter]

Is your 28/3.5 multicoated? If so then should be more flare resistant than earlier versions. Multicoated versions however are likely to be more contrasty. A lens with more lens elements may be less contrasty.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't think the 28 3.5 is multicoated, I would get a 28 2.8 AI with rabbit ears, if your Nikon is without meter get any later model 28. I use a 28 2.8 AIS on my Nikon F a really nice lens.

 

[BMbikerider]

Either of the last versions of the 24 or 28mm Nikon AIS lenses would do the job perfectly. They were still equipped with the 'Rabbit Ears' coupling for the meter.) With a little more weight, and cost, then the F2 versions are also slightly better. I also understand the 24mm versions (I don't know about the 28mm though) had floating elements which maintained the lens quality for closeups much in the same way as the 20mm F2.8 does

 

[Camerarabbit]

I don't think the 28 3.5 is multicoated, I would get a 28 2.8 AI with rabbit ears, if your Nikon is without meter get any later model 28. I use a 28 2.8 AIS on my Nikon F a really nice lens.

Thanks! I dont use metering,and the camera doesnt have metering. There are so many lenses out there - when you say "any later model 28" - can you suggest the name of one?

 

[Camerarabbit]

Is your 28/3.5 multicoated? If so then should be more flare resistant than earlier versions. Multicoated versions however are likely to be more contrasty. A lens with more lens elements may be less contrasty.

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

 

[FotoD]

I don't understand how buying a more modern multicoated lens would give you *less* contrasty negs. If anything it would give you the opposite.

I don't think it's about your lens, I think you have to process your negs differently.

The Nikkor images have a large subject brightness range, while the Zeiss shot is taken in full shade. That's why the highlights look clipped in the Nikkor shots.

 

[GregY]

I don't understand how buying a more modern multicoated lens would give you *less* contrasty negs. If anything it would give you the opposite.

I don't think it's about your lens, I think you have to process your negs differently.

The Nikkor images have a large subject brightness range, while the Zeiss shot is taken in full shade. That's why the highlights look clipped in the Nikkor shots.

Agreed. How(if) were the Nikon photos metered? What film? How was it exposed? How was it processed?

 

[Camerarabbit]

the shot in bright sun was f/16 500th of a second 10 mins sprint. same way i process my c/y stuff. there's one shot in the shadow and oyull see that the highlights in the background and pretty much blown out, and that was me trying my best to recover them on an imacon scanner. my c/y lens would never look like contrasty

 

[Robert Ley]

I used a Nikon 28mm f:2 ai and loved it. I can't remember ever shooting at f:2, but that f:2 aperture made it a little easier to focus. The 28 f: 3.5 that you are using is generally a pretty decent lens for it's age and I would not blame the lens, at least not after just one roll.

 

[GregY]

the shot in bright sun was f/16 500th of a second 10 mins sprint. same way i process my c/y stuff. there's one shot in the shadow and oyull see that the highlights in the background and pretty much blown out, and that was me trying my best to recover them on an imacon scanner. my c/y lens would never look like contrasty

can you show us a backlit photo of the negative. BTW what film & @ what ISO did you use? Although i don't have a Nikon currently, I used many lenses from that era on Nikon Fs and much in BW & lots of Kodachrome & blown out highlights were never an issue. If anything modern Zeiss lenses would be more contrasty than old Nikkors. But you're now judging by what you get from your scanner....which is another thing between you & the negative.

 

[grain elevator]

Yeah it's not plausible a lens made your highlights blow out. The contrast differences between lensens mainly play out in the shadows through flare.

 

[FotoD]

there's one shot in the shadow and oyull see that the highlights in the background and pretty much blown out, and that was me trying my best to recover them on an imacon scanner. my c/y lens would never look like contrasty

The detail is all there. I don't see any significant difference between the lenses. I see two very different lighting conditions.

This is with a curve to bring down the midtones:

Don't get me wrong, I love my 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. But it wouldn't make your photos less contrasty.

If you want to make the first frame less contrasty you can:
1. Develop less
2. Use Photoshop trix / print on a lower paper grade, or
3. Use a lens with much internal flare.

Buying a more modern multicoated lens won't help you.

 

[chuckroast]

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

Both the 24mm f/2.8 Ai or Ai-S and the 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S are superb lenses. I use them on my film bodies as well as my D750.

In that same family of great old glass so good it cannot be ignored are the 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S, the 85mm f/1.4 Ai-S, and the 105mm f/2.5 Ai or Ai-S. Honorable mention to the 180mm f/2.8.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I dont use metering,and the camera doesnt have metering.

I think this might be the underlying issue.

 

[Paul Howell]

I started with a 28 3.5, I think it was H, when I had lens upgraded to AI, it was the one lens I that traded in for a new 28 2.8. AI, I also have a 28 2.8 E lens that is pretty good performer stopped down. As noted by others, the Nikon's shutter might be off, if it is slow by stop or more that would explain the blown highlights. My F has the standard non metered head, I had the shutter speeds checked, all off by a 1/2 stop so I compensate.

 

[dokko]

I agree with what has been said here, the cause of the difference in contrast you're seeing is almost certainly due to other factors (exposure, film, developing, scanning).
to find out what causes it, we would need more information, and probably a controlled test. if you shoot the same object, with the same film, the same exposure, developed in the same chemicals at the same time, and scanned/printed with identical settings, than the difference will be hard to tell, since the lenses you used are very similar in contrast if in good condition (or if there is a difference it will become clear what caused it).

all that said, here a few extra thoughts that might be helpful:

- if you strive for a bit more sharpness/micro contrast, you might want to avoid shooting at F-stops higher than 11, because at F16 and higher, diffraction will soften your image (this will be very noticeable on a high quality scan)

- the Nikon 28mm F2.8 AI-s lens is one of the best Nikon lenses ever and probably slightly sharper than your 28mm (if you shoot at F16 and higher if wont make any difference which 28mm you use though).

- Zeiss makes very nice lenses for Nikon F mount - the ZF, ZF.2, Milvus and Otus series. they are all sharper and have much better coating than vintage Nikon lenses, which means they usually have significantly higher contrast than the vintage Nikon (and C/Y) lenses.

 

[Sean Mac]

For more than twenty years I have used the 24/2.8 as the wide angle for my FM2n's. It never disappoints and I was happy enough that I never considered any alternative.

Recently I gave one of my FM2n's to my niece for her first year in Art College.

I have replaced it with a gently worn in F and a minty F2 and I'm enjoying the process of shooting 35mm without a built in meter.

I chose the 28/2 for the first wide angle in my pre AI system.

The 20/3.5 is definitely in my plan so, for now, the wide but not ultra wide 28 is proving to be a pleasure to use. It has me wondering about the 35mm focal length too.

So I think the best choice will have to consider which other lenses you plan to own.

Perhaps you might refine your process to optimise your results with the 28/3.5 before making a decision. Once you are stopped down the differences between the various choices may not be as significant as you imagine.

Good luck with whatever you decide....

 

[mshchem]

The detail is all there. I don't see any significant difference between the lenses. I see two very different lighting conditions.

This is with a curve to bring down the midtones:

View attachment 353850View attachment 353851

Don't get me wrong, I love my 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. But it wouldn't make your photos less contrasty.

If you want to make the first frame less contrasty you can:
1. Develop less
2. Use Photoshop trix / print on a lower paper grade, or
3. Use a lens with much internal flare.

Buying a more modern multicoated lens won't help you.

These look quite good

 

[Focomatter]

I don't understand how buying a more modern multicoated lens would give you *less* contrasty negs. If anything it would give you the opposite.

I don't think it's about your lens, I think you have to process your negs differently.

The Nikkor images have a large subject brightness range, while the Zeiss shot is taken in full shade. That's why the highlights look clipped in the Nikkor shots.

Early lenses were designed with fewer elements and lens-air surfaces to improve contrast with single layer coating via less flare. When they got multicoated their contrast increased, flare even less. However, multicoating enabled more complex lens designs with more air-glass surfaces, which theoretically would be less contrasty than updated older designs.

 

[dokko]

Early lenses were designed with fewer elements and lens-air surfaces to improve contrast with single layer coating via less flare. When they got multicoated their contrast increased, flare even less. However, multicoating enabled more complex lens designs with more air-glass surfaces, which theoretically would be less contrasty than updated older designs.

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

 

[Camerarabbit]

Thanks all! Everyone makes good points. But, we never discussed the flare! It basically makes the image unuseable. I'm assuming that a more modern lens would handle flare much better? Thinking of returning this lens and going for that AI lens just for that fact.

 

[George Mann]

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

First of all, are you using the proper lens hood? Second, most of the images look like the natural result of clipping of the highlights from an exposure mismatch caused by the foreground shadow areas.

I have a Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 Ai-S (with the proper lens hood) that has successfully kept flairing and ghosting under control.

 

[Camerarabbit]

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?

 

[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?

on an older camera that very well could be.....