Discussion in 'Nikon' started by scott_murphy|5, Jul 15, 2015.
Does anyone have experience with this lens? I am considering getting one.
Get the Nikkor 28-50mm f/3.5 AI-S instead. Very sharp lens and a fixed aperture of f/3.5 ( not like f/3.5-5.6 ) This lens is on my Df all the time.
Bela seems to be thinking about the AF 24-50 f3.5 to 5.6, so his comment is invalid.
The old manual 24-50 f4 fixed aperture is a very good lens and highly regarded by Bjorn Rorslett as an excellent lens for the Df.
Sorry - typo. Should be 35-50mm f4 fixed aperture.
Nikon made a wonderful 28-50 3.5 AIS. Bela's comment stands!
I have one. I got it for $100, and I was able to re-lube the focusing helicoid myself(fairly simple construction). I recommend it if you can get for a low price like me.
I've never done systematic, thorough aperture series sharpness testing. Mostly I take it out every once in a while for the odd handheld shots in bright daylight.
My copy, at f/4, is a bit low contrast. Improves at f/5.6, more at f/8. Mostly I've shot at f/8.
Recently, I shot an urban alleyway scene at f/11...wow! It had the full detail of a modern design lens on the D800.
Focusing at f/4 is, as you can imagine, is a bit vague or indistinct compared to an f/2 or f/1.4 lens.
The Nikon Nikkor 28-50mm f/3,5 AI-S a supper sharp lens, almost nobody know it and not very cheep either, if you find one in the market. When I bought one for my Df, I was very surprised of the lens performance, as a practical normal lens for the Df. Since I both a second copy and try it, and it is the same, very sharp lens. I keep both of them, just in case. All the others in the same range are kit lenses category, compare it to this little jewel. Hood is very difficult to find and no standard hood of any, going to fit. Vignetting in the 28mm setting. To complement this lens on the wide angle range, I cary in my packet a tiny 20mm f/4 AI, smaller then a regular 50mm lens, and it is sharp too.
I never had a color or contrast problem at all. If you find one, it is around $200-300.00 Many of my images in this web site done with this lens.
The 28-50/3.5 (which does exist) is a very sharp lens indeed because it was originally designed as a macro lens, but I have found that its strengths were for close to close/medium distance subjects. For landscapes, it was just okay, or as others would say: 'meh"
IMHO, the 25-50/4.0 is a better all around lens; not quite as good as the above lens for close-ups, but again, IMO, preferable for groups photos, landscapes and all around shooting. It is solidly built and heavy. Also, you may or may not like the separate rings for focus and zoom. I didn't mind it. If I were to buy a manual focus zoom lens today, it would be this one.
Bela - that is a good looking setup! I have the 50-135 f/3.5, and I can see how this lens would pair nicely.
I used a 25-50mm f/4 for years during my last fling with black-and-white film, often with a deep yellow filter on it. I found it to be optically excellent for that use. My biggest complaint about it was that the focus throw (the amount you rotate the ring from infinity to the closest focus setting) was very long, so the lens didn't "pop" into focus the way other lenses do. It also only focused to 2 feet, which was somewhat limiting.
Hi Chip, As I said, I have tow of them, the 28-50/3.5 and also the 50-135/3.5, two of the. Just in case. I bought them years ago for around 100 dollar, and today, they are around 200 dollar. Many of my Rocky images was shot with the 50-135 on a D3s or a D4. Excellent focal range with the additional 20/3.5AI ( or and even smaller 20mm f/4 AI ) or the also tiny 18mm AI. I don't cary all the bag as I see pure photographers walking around looks like a loaded Sherpa climbers. Even if I had the 28-50 and the 50-135mm I covered well, and if I need a wider angle shot, just use the 28mm and make multiple rows of shoots to cover the wider angle coverage if required and stitched them in the PS. Walking around happily with two cameras and covered almost everything. When I need a super wide angle, I get the Df + 14mm f/2.8 rectilinear and still baggage free. I hardly using tripods, only for night and long exposure shootings.
The 25-50/4 AI is twice the size of the 28-50/3.5AI, and according with some, it is not as sharp as the 28-50/4AI.
But, I going to get one and checked out myself. The size is matter for me in this case, and in this case only, the smaller is better.
Nikon D4, Nikon Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 AI-S. See EXIF data.
Nikon D4, Nikon 50-135mm f/3.5 AI-S. See EXIF data.
It's a good lens. I used it with film, and images are excellent. On the D700 images are good. Advice: Shoot at f/8~f/11 for best results. It's a two-touch design lens, as such, does not have DOF markings on the barrel. The lens booklet has a DOF chart. So, you need to imagine where to adjust focus for optimal sharpness from near to infinity at your chosen aperture f/stop. P.S. The 50-135/3.5 is a good companion lens. It has DOF markings on the barrel. But, its push-pull design barrel can "walk".
Both the 25-50 and 28-50 mm lenses are fine. The 28-50mm was supposedly intended to be an E series lens in the beginning, the somewhat matte finish on the lens barrel would tend to support that. I used it a lot, with the DX D200 sensor though.
Optically on 12mp FX the nod goes to the 25-50 mm, handling and size are definitely preferable with the 28-50mm.
I recently purchased the 25-50/4 AIS the lens and highly recommend it. Testing it on my D750 shows sharpness similar to primes with high IQ and very low distortion. Keep in mind that when it was introduced there were no Lightroom to compensate for lens distortion and other image robbing defects. Build quality well exceeds most of Nikon's current offerings as this lens was originally built to their highest standards back in the early 80's before introduction of their AF lenses. I would however suggest getting the AIS over the AI as the shorter focus throw on the AIS version is much easier to use.
I have recently shot a tripod-mounted test series with my 25-50/4.
Near range was about 6 feet away, far range was about 40 feet away.
I'm looking at 1:1(camera pixels to screen pixels) on a 27" NEC PA-271 display
Close range: At 25mm and 28mm, tack sharp in the center from wide open. At 35mm and 50mm, noticeably not as sharp at all stops, and needs to go to f/5.6 to begin to compete with the 25 and 28 focal lengths.
At distance, results mirror the near range per focal length.
Quality is good through f/11. f/16 takes a noticeable drop in contrast but it's still good enough for small prints. At f/22, the lens gets very soft, but is still good enough for very small prints.
This is my copy. YMMV...
Separate names with a comma.