Jump to content

inexpensive upgrade from Nikkor 24mm f/2.8?


chulster

Recommended Posts

The left edge looks marginally worse than the right, which would indicate some decentring, but overall I think you're expecting too much from old film-era lens designs.

 

There's a good reason that decent lenses cost $1K and upwards these days, and that's because our pixel-peeping expectations are so high.

 

Raise your budget or lower your expectations! :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raise your budget or lower your expectations! :rolleyes:

I've noticed this trend amongst 'nostalgic' users that hanker after the good 'ol days of film whose lenses just aren't up to even minor peeking on a DSLR searching endlessly for an inexpensive diamond in the rough. Like here..

 

best 85mm lens under $250

 

Bit like car owners that want what I believe is called a resto-mod. Where they want the best of both worlds by having a nice old 50/60's body with the latest powerplant/transmission/brakes and other toys.

 

Most modern lenses are faster, bigger and heavier (often but not always 'cos of new materials) and have far fewer of the problems associated with the small, slow and lighter older lenses of yesteryear of similar focal length.

 

It's a trend. It may also explain the explosion of new indy lens makers producing MF lenses with undeniable optical faults being marketed to the retro brigade.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of Nikon's groundbreaking film-era lenses, while still impressive, can be a mixed bag on DSLR. Certain aberration compromises that were effective with film are less so on a digital sensor, as we see with many vintage lenses. If a photographer can live within the compromises, or deliberately make use of the vintage character, they can be excellent tools (and far cheaper than current-day fast glass).

 

The 28mm F/2 Nikkor is a prime example of this: on film, or lower res early full frame like D3/D700, it can be remarkably good. Its the most flare-resistant fast wide Nikon ever made. Center sharpness is good, often even wide open, but the corners aren't great unless well stopped down. Overall it has a nice look to it. Very small and handy for a fast SLR wide, with 52mm filter size.

 

But it begins to fall apart a little at 24MP and shows its age at 36-42MP. Still worthwhile and usable if you can work with the performance envelope, but if you're spoiled by the new Z lenses then forget it. Wide open gets gauzy, and field curvature worsens at higher resolutions (resulting in crummy edges/corners). It helps understanding of how to best deploy it if one realizes it was not intended as a corner-to-corner landscape lens, but as a wider, more ghost-resistant photojournalism companion to the venerable-but-ghost-haunted 35/2. In its day, we shot TriX or High Speed Ektachrome with it for indoor available light, and the aberrations got lost in the grain (vs today, when sensors routinely shoot at 3200 as if it were Kodachrome, but perversely reveal and magnify every damned lens flaw).

 

Theres also more sample variation than usual for this era Nikkor, and newer isn't always better. I've owned four examples of 28/2 over 30 years: two pre-AI, one AI and one AIS. Of these, the best is the AI, followed closely by one of the pre-AI. The other two seemed good until I acquired the better samples, then I sold the stragglers. The difference between "adequate" and "good" examples of the 28/2 Nikkor is not subtle.

 

Regarding the 24/2.8, rodeo_joe describes it very well: the edges and corners decline "gracefully", which was quite an achievement for a mid-60s design that was the first mass production lens with a floating element. Overall the older Nikkor-N and NC version has a marvelous character, I had mine factory AI'd and prefer it to almost any other 24mm I've used (even the legendary Olympus Zuiko, which is sharper at the corners but distorts like a coke bottle). The pre-AI 24mm is flare resistant but can ghost with city nightscapes (not nearly as bad as the 35/2, but its there). The later AI/AIS reformulation, which I also own but use less, resists ghosts better but can flare more. The later version performs slightly better all around but leaves me cold pictorially: if I ever find another 24mm Nikkor-NC with factory AI ring, it will replace my reformulated AI backup.

Edited by orsetto
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed this trend amongst 'nostalgic' users that hanker after the good 'ol days of film whose lenses just aren't up to even minor peeking on a DSLR searching endlessly for an inexpensive diamond in the rough.

A bit harsh Mike, but the truth often hurts.

 

There are still a few 'diamonds in the rough' out there. Though maybe not as many as lunatic eBay prices would lead one to believe.

 

It's my opinion that there's also a strong Emperor's New Clothes effect at work too. With Internet memes lauding one lens over a near identical design from another maker and praising an (imaginary?) special 'look' that a mere mortal would need a pair of magic spectacles to see.

 

That's not what Chulster is after. I just think he's shooting for the moon with a BB gun!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prices on the Nikkor 28/2 dipped appreciably when Nikon finally got around to updating it (40 years later) with the 28mm f/1.8 AFS. Then people started buying the AFS, and discovering that in some fundamental areas it was no better (and in some respects worse) than the old 28/2. Prices on the old lens crept back up again, because its way smaller and cheaper and doesn't suffer from comparison to its AFS replacement nearly as much as the 20, 24 and 35 Nikkors. The AFS has really pronounced field curvature, more significant than the older smaller 28/2 (the older lens is let down more by chromatic aberrations at the edges conflicting with sensor glass than optical field curvature).

 

To get knockout performance at 28mm for digital, you need one of the AFS zooms (or a Z lens). Nikon has been curiously, persistently unable to produce a killer 28mm prime (even the lauded f/2.8 AIS and 28/1.4 AFD entailed significant compromises).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit harsh Mike, but the truth often hurts.

 

There are still a few 'diamonds in the rough' out there. Though maybe not as many as lunatic eBay prices would lead one to believe.

 

It's my opinion that there's also a strong Emperor's New Clothes effect at work too. With Internet memes lauding one lens over a near identical design from another maker and praising an (imaginary?) special 'look' that a mere mortal would need a pair of magic spectacles to see.

 

That's not what Chulster is after. I just think he's shooting for the moon with a BB gun!

 

Yes. I can certainly appreciate the "keeping it real" conclusion that we mustn't expect too much of old glass that costs a tenth the price of new lenses. I'm sure that's true. I think, though, that I've been spoiled not so much by new lenses (of which I've had precious few, due to their cost) as by outstanding examples of old ones. I like the 35/2, the 50/2, the 50/1.4... i'm warming up to the 24/2.8 and 85/1.8... and others. None is perfect by any stretch, but — for example, my copy of the 50/2 has outstanding peripheral acuity, as good as that of the 50/1.8G, even if overall sharpness doesn't measure up...and i'm fine with that.

 

I just think this copy of the 28/2 seems leagues "worse" than any other vintage Nikkor I've tried, and I wanted to know if it was normal. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Nikkor-NC 28/2, "beater" with perfect glass, bought for $100. It is much sharper than my mint condition UC Hexanon AR 28 mm / F1.8. The latter- still sells for a lot of money, much more than the Nikkor. It is rare, but not as good.

 

There are bad copies, and being a floating element design- could be mechanical problems.

Edited by Brian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a visualization of the field curvature of my 28/2. This is a picture of my bedroom ceiling, taken while standing on my bed. The ceiling has that cottage-cheese texture often used in American apartments. The image was run through the Find Edges filter in Photoshop and then had Auto Contrast applied to make the edges stand out even more.

 

The degree of curvature revealed by this test will depend sensitively on the angle between the lens axis and the ceiling. In the absence of a conventional angle that everyone accepts, the test is rather meaningless. But at least you can get some feel for how much field curvature this particular lens has. This example is pretty stark.

 

WCcCWTN.jpeg

Edited by chulster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now after all this talk.. you dear people DID it ;-) ..I put my old AI-converted pre-AI 24/2.8 on my (less) old D800 and walked the dog in the forest... Some bark and brown leaves further, I'm actually rather in love with the lens again. No corner drama's, no (un)sharpness drama's, lovely small package.. 'what's not to like'?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now after all this talk.. you dear people DID it ;-) ..I put my old AI-converted pre-AI 24/2.8 on my (less) old D800 and walked the dog in the forest... Some bark and brown leaves further, I'm actually rather in love with the lens again. No corner drama's, no (un)sharpness drama's, lovely small package.. 'what's not to like'?

 

Yes, I must conclude that I was too hard on the lens (which is the same version as yours) in my initial post. Especially after comparing its images to those from my unrepresentative copy of the 28/2. The image degradation of my N.C 24/2.8 toward the edges is genteel by comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Vivitar 24/2.0 that I got many years ago as a Christmas present.

After not so many years, the aperture stuck open.

 

Then I found a good price on a used Nikkor AI 24/2.8, and bought that one.

I haven't used it so recently, but last time I did the aperture still moved.

(I can't be sure that it actually closes all the way down, though.)

 

That was about 30 years ago, if anyone is counting.

 

Much more recently, I got a 19-35 zoom lens, though I forget who made it.

(Well, the name on the outside, which might not be who made it.)

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While checking a few 35mm backup Nikkors for fungus yesterday, it occurred to me I'd never done a close-up bokeh comparison at close distances in controlled conditions. In the middle of that experiment, I pulled out my two 28/2 Nikkors and one of my 24s to throw in the mix (along with some bookshelf and newsapaper testing on the latter for chulster's sake). The results reminded me why I so seldom use the 28/2 anymore in the era of DSLR: the optical design makes it much more difficult to get optimal results on a sensor vs film. If ever there was a manual focus lens meant for mirrorless, its the 28/2 Nikkor: at least with EVF you can see where the lens is veering away from what you need, and compensate accordingly in real time.

 

Of my two samples, the 28/2 pre-AI NC version is noticeably less good than my AI/K, particularly wide open where the pre-AI is about as bad as the notorious 35/1.4 AIS (but without the charm of the wide open 35: the 28 is just poor). My 28/2 AI/K is more usable wide open: a bit glowy, but not unduly so. Both iterations show noticeable vignetting and edge/corner smearing until stopped down to f/5.6 or 8. Both also have substantial field curvature when used with digital sensor cover glass, which makes them very unpredictable and difficult to control with DSLR. It is virtually impossible to get even edge to edge sharpness: definitely not a lens optimized for landscape.

 

Hyperfocal and focus/recompose tricks don't work out too well with the 28/2: for off center subjects one really needs to compose first, then patiently, slowly rack focus while watching the edge/corner of the finder screen (or live view). In-finder electronic focus confirmation won't help off center unless the body is DX format with a selectable focus sensor near the edge/corner you need. For a lens that was meant for photojournalists, its about as far from fast-operating as you can get with digital, tho oddly it worked much easier/more predictably with film. The 28/2 makes the ancient, quirky 35/2 seem like a flat field macro by comparison, which is really saying something (and might explain why Nikon even today fails to tame field curvature in the newest 28/1.8 AFS). The renowned 28/2.8 AIS is more practical in some cases, esp closeup to portrait distance, but isn't as good as the 28/2 at infinity (and the two 2.8 AIS I tried had much less overall "pop" than the 28/2: for me the 28/2.8 AIS was slower but not significantly better).

 

The 24/2.8 Nikkor-NC is a different animal from any of the Nikkor 28s. It has some vignetting and corner softness wide open on DSLR, but thats somehow not as disappointing as the 28/2: it seems more evened out and mellow, and gets progressively better with stopping down. Field curvature is much less intrusive: its there, but you can work with it easily. The rendering just seems "right" despite not technically being up to D850 standards. Later revised 24mm AI/AIS performance is similar to the old NC but with a touch less charm, which may be why the manual focus 24 has a mixed reputation on digital.

 

1504470917_Nikkor28mm2and24mm28.thumb.jpg.a92267c33ad23aa8fcc62308406fd47b.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I think Nikon has forsaken updating its primes in favor of pushing folks to midrange zooms.

 

I don't have the current 24-70mm f/2.8E, but do have the older 24-70 f/2.8G. It's a good enough lens that it's rarely not on one of my digitals. It's also miles ahead of the N-C or AI 24mm f/2.8(I have one of each) which to me have always been "meh" to the other range of excellent 52mm filter Nikon prime line-up goes. In particular, most of the old lenses have fairly consistent and nicely "poppy" color rendition, and I find the 24mm(along with the 85mm f/2) to be a bit dull in comparison. They both kind of defeat the purpose of-well-keeping properties like that consistent across a lens line.

 

Of course an f/2.8 Zoom gives up a stop vs. the 28mm, but it's still better at f/2.8 and 28mm than the 28mm f/2. If there's interest, I'd be open to running a quick comparison this afternoon(hopefully).

 

The big downside is that it's a chunk of a lens, and I've been known to use the optically inferior and slower 24-120mm f/4 because it's so much lighter and smaller.

 

BTW, one surprisingly underrated sleeper IME is the 25-50mm f/4 zoom. It's a bit of an obscure lens and I don't see too many references to it online, but mine is excellent. Of course, like a lot of MF zooms, it's slow and also heavy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@orsetto Thanks for the testing and detailed write-up!

 

Both also have substantial field curvature when used with digital sensor cover glass, which makes them very unpredictable and difficult to control with DSLR. It is virtually impossible to get even edge to edge sharpness: definitely not a lens optimized for landscape.

 

Ah...so my copy of the 28/2 was not that unusual! That amount of field curvature was more than I could tolerate...but it makes a lot of sense that the lens would have behaved differently on film.

 

The 24/2.8 Nikkor-NC is a different animal from any of the Nikkor 28s. It has some vignetting and corner softness wide open on DSLR, but thats somehow not as disappointing as the 28/2: it seems more evened out and mellow, and gets progressively better with stopping down. Field curvature is much less intrusive: its there, but you can work with it easily. The rendering just seems "right" despite not technically being up to D850 standards. Later revised 24mm AI/AIS performance is similar to the old NC but with a touch less charm, which may be why the manual focus 24 has a mixed reputation on digital.

 

I think this assessment of the N.C 24/2.8 (which agrees with what a couple of other thread participants wrote) is spot on. I'm glad I didn't rashly return this lens (as I did the 28/2). I no longer think I need an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I think Nikon has forsaken updating its primes in favor of pushing folks to midrange zooms.

 

I don't have the current 24-70mm f/2.8E, but do have the older 24-70 f/2.8G. It's a good enough lens that it's rarely not on one of my digitals. It's also miles ahead of the N-C or AI 24mm f/2.8(I have one of each) which to me have always been "meh" to the other range of excellent 52mm filter Nikon prime line-up goes. In particular, most of the old lenses have fairly consistent and nicely "poppy" color rendition, and I find the 24mm(along with the 85mm f/2) to be a bit dull in comparison. They both kind of defeat the purpose of-well-keeping properties like that consistent across a lens line.

 

Of course an f/2.8 Zoom gives up a stop vs. the 28mm, but it's still better at f/2.8 and 28mm than the 28mm f/2. If there's interest, I'd be open to running a quick comparison this afternoon(hopefully).

 

The big downside is that it's a chunk of a lens, and I've been known to use the optically inferior and slower 24-120mm f/4 because it's so much lighter and smaller.

 

BTW, one surprisingly underrated sleeper IME is the 25-50mm f/4 zoom. It's a bit of an obscure lens and I don't see too many references to it online, but mine is excellent. Of course, like a lot of MF zooms, it's slow and also heavy.

 

Ben, I have no doubt whatsoever that the 24-70mm (either version, or indeed any current version from any maker) delivers a more balanced and technically better image at 28mm f/2 than the 28/2 prime. It would be fun to see comparison photos all the same!

 

I'm also sure you're right about the 24-70mm being better than the 24/2.8. I just have never wanted to spend so much on a single lens, and the weight and size give me pause too. I think if I were a serious photographer, I would indeed buy a 24-70mm and then stop thinking about lenses. But I have to admit I'm less a photographer than someone who just enjoys using old lenses, particularly the good ones. I love being surprised when an old, cheap lens delivers surprisingly good image quality.

 

I'm going to try and snag a 25-50mm f/4. Every opinion I've read on it has been fairly glowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the current 24-70mm f/2.8E, but do have the older 24-70 f/2.8G. It's a good enough lens that it's rarely not on one of my digitals. It's also miles ahead of the N-C or AI 24mm f/2.8(I have one of each) which to me have always been "meh" to the other range of excellent 52mm filter Nikon prime line-up goes. In particular, most of the old lenses have fairly consistent and nicely "poppy" color rendition, and I find the 24mm(along with the 85mm f/2) to be a bit dull in comparison.

 

The manual focus 24/2.8 and 85/2 comprise their own little subset of "inconsistently controversial Nikkors." I've never been sure if its unusual sample variation or some other factor, but these two have been the most polarizing since the migration from film to digital: people either fiercely defend them, or wouldn't be caught dead using them, with very few photographers taking a middle opinion. Of the two, I think the 85 has been more consistently disliked, dating back to the film years when it replaced the venerable 85/1.8 pre-AI. Even then it was often considered disappointing compared to other 85 and 105 Nikkors.

 

Back in the early '90s when I was looking for my first 85, early H and HC modified for AI were much more expensive than used 85/2 AI, and the very scarce 85/1.8 K was virtually impossible to find (still is). So I settled for the 85/2 AI: after a month it went into a drawer never to be retrieved again until I sold it. Wonderfully tiny, paired perfectly with my FM2N, and I couldn't say it was technically bad: it was sharp enough and predictable enough. But the pics on transparency film were just inexplicably blah: coldish, grayish, lifeless. As soon as I could track down an 85/1.8 HC with clean AI mod from KEH, I grabbed it and never looked back. Yet, I've seen some beautiful portraits posted here and elsewhere taken with the 85/2: so much better than my copy that I'm floored. YMMV, indeed.

 

The 24mm didn't interest me until much later. First I tried the AIS, which gave a rendition similar to the 85/2: it didn't stay with me long. Then I learned the earlier NC had slightly different optics, so stalked an AI'd version til I found one. That worked much better for me: not a "great" lens, but a good one for my purposes (occasional use, as I don't commonly see in "wide"). My example has the typical rendition of the better-grade multicoated pre-AI lenses, and performs almost identically to chulster's tests posted above. Couple years later I tracked down the specific AI/K version that has same original optics as the NC for a backup (slightly different coatings, but largely the same lens).

 

Opinions seem more variable for the 24/2.8 in digital use. Most owners were very happy with it on film, but the transition to digital gave it a bumpy ride. Reports varied as camera sensors evolved, averaged out I'd say 65% don't care for the 24 on digital while 35% make do with it or actively enjoy it. Parsing these opinions can be difficult because many fail to indicate exactly which version is being discussed: N/NC, early AI, late AI/AIS, or AFD. There's a definite character difference between early and later revisions: for some photography the differences are insignificant, for others it can be very noticeable (i.e. the early resists flare well but can ghost easily, the later resists ghosting but flares easier, and the AF has wild sample variation). Having tried all three versions, I prefer the early NC: its roughly equivalent to results I get with my 20/3.5 AIS.

 

Whether a given vintage Nikkor wide lens will work for anyone on digital is subject to many factors. Contrary to legend, if we're being totally honest, Nikon excelled at making portrait and tele glass but was not really "great" at wides during the film era. They were pioneers with some ideas like fast apertures and floating elements, but the execution faltered a bit. They could be very good, or at least good enough, but Minolta, Canon and sometimes Pentax outperformed them from 1975 on. Nikon seemed fixated on having the smallest possible size/weight and retaining their 52mm filter size: this resulted in some marvelously compact lenses like the 20/4 and 28/2 that entail some optical compromises. These compromises often seemed trivial on film but get exaggerated by dead flat sensors with cover glass and microlenses.

 

Depending on your specific camera style and sensor, and the subject matter you shoot most often, the manual focus Nikkor wides will be worth it to you or not. Those who shoot at mid to smaller apertures and prefer smaller lighter lenses will enjoy them, those who prefer wider apertures and higher resolution sensors are better served by modern Zeiss or Sigma primes, or premium Nikon-Canon-Sony zooms. Consistent drop-dead razor sharpness across the field costs, in both money and size/weight (i.e the Sigma 40mm Art is incredible, but I would never ever carry it).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to Orsetto for additional detailed discussions.

 

Thinking back, I mostly used the AI'd 28/2NC on a D3s for mostly people photos at relatively close ranges in ambient evening or indoor lighting. For that mission, I preferred the 28/2 to the 28-70/2.8 AFS I had and the 28/2.8AIS I tried briefly. The D3s+28/2 did generate one of the most memorable photos of my son that I have, so I will always hold the combo in high regard.

 

Although I still have the D3s & 28/2, I use a Z6 with 14-30 most of the time now, and admit that I have not tried the 28/2 on the Z6. Also don't have the opportunity to shoot people in the evening much any more. Darn covid has dampened my photography, for sure.

Edited by robert_bouknight|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...