Finally found a mint 28-50/3.5 AIS

I have been searching for a mint 28-50/3.5 AIS for months now and finally

found one and bought it for 199 dollars an a wellknown auction site.Haven't

received it yet but since I've bought several times from this reliable seller

I'm pretty sure it will be without a scratch and in good working condition.

 

I already have a 25-50/4 AI (also in mint condition)and will probably sell

this lense and keep the 28-50/3.5 because of its smaller size,weight and

because its 52mm filter size.From what I've read (not a lot of information is

to be found) the 25-50/4 seems to be the sharper lense but is the difference

in optical quality that great?What are the experiences from those who have

used these two fine lenses?How do they compare?

Open the package, when it arrives, snap a few pictures and you can tell us!

That's true,David but I'm pretty sure there are people here who have been using these lenses for a long time.I would appreciate to know their experiences with the two lenses.I've read for example that the 28-50/3.5 flares more easily (the 25-50/4 not or less)but is it such a big problem?

I don't have the 28-50, but I find that my 25-50 is very sharp, and also has no distortion that I can notice, when shooting architecture. When I want a zoom that has a better range as a general walkaround lens, I like my 28-85mm Nikkor the best.

 

You'll let us know how the 28-50 compares when you've tried it. Don't forget!

Sorry Danny, but I have no valuable contribution about your lens, but I applaud your pursuit of the short zoom. I wonder what Nikon could do with aspherics if they were willing to make a fantastic 24-60: a wide to very shallow portrait lens. I've read good things about their 28-70 2.8, and maybe that's the best they can do, even now. Some would say its neither this or that; I would say its precisely this and that (as long as they can keep it compact :-)

Thanks for your replies.Yes,the 25-50/4 is sharp and has no distortion.I'm really curious for the 28-50/3.5.Its compactness as you say is an important factor.I hope it will be optically allright too even if its not as good as the 25-50mm.

 

Well,I already received a mail that the 28-50mm is on its way from the USA to Belgium and I hope to receive it by the end of this week.Parcels from the USA get here very fast but then the Belgian Post takes over and it takes more time for the parcel to get from Brussels to my place (about 80km) than to cross the big water :)

I have the 28-50. It's a fine lens: I mostly use it on my F with meterless prism for general/street photography. I'm still looking for the hood, though.

I own the 28-50mm and I like it. Goes well on my FE2. Some people have reported field curvature on the wide end, but I'm just a snap shooter so it's not a big issue. However as an f/3.5 lens it's noticeably darker in the viewfinder (I use a B2 screen). Even given its limited range, I like it for its small size, one touch zoom and sharpness. It's the only manual focus zoom I've kept. Apparently this was only made for 2 years and then discontinued, so not that many floating around.

 

I wonder how well it performs on a D200. Perhaps someone here has tried it? Would be nice to know.

In my experience, the 28-50 is reasonably sharp. I have not used the 25-50 but I'd guess it is sharper at wide apertures.

 

The 28-50 has noticeable barrel distortion at the wide end. Past 35mm the distortion is pretty much gone.

 

Both the 28-50 and 25-50 focus to 0.6m, but the 28-50 has a "macro mode" at 50mm down to 0.32m which can be useful.

 

The 28-50 shows weird reflections and ghost images when shooting into strong light - it's not much good for sunsets until the sun gets really low and dim. I believe the 25-50 is much better in that regard.

 

The 28-50 is the only Nikon wideangle zoom with DOF marks, which can be handy for lanscape work.

 

In this range I prefer the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5, mainly for the extra reach and freedom of flare. Besides the 28-50 it is the only wideangle zoom with a 52mm filter. It works well as a manual lens. The focus ring is reasonably well damped and the focus scale is not over compressed like many other AF zooms. It's quite sharp provided you stop down a little. It also has barrel distortion at the wide end but is pretty neutral from 35-70mm.

Thank you Roland.Much appreciated.It seems it's going to be difficult to decide between the 25-50 and the 28-50 because I really like to shoot into the light.If the 28-50 flares easily that's a negative point.

 

I have used the 28-70mm you mention but sold it because mine wasn't sharp at all.Perhaps I had a bad sample.I regretted selling it because of the reasons you mention but the optical quality was really bad.But nice range,handy size and weight and also 52mm filters.

<i>It seems it's going to be difficult to decide between the 25-50 and the 28-50 because I really like to shoot into the light.If the 28-50 flares easily that's a negative point.</i>

<p>

Now you have both you could try them out and see how you like them before making up your mind. My idea of sharpness flare might be different from yours.

<p>

<i>I have used the 28-70mm you mention but sold it because mine wasn't sharp at all. Perhaps I had a bad sample. I regretted selling it because of the reasons you mention but the optical quality was really bad. But nice range,handy size and weight and also 52mm filters.</i>

<p>

There are mixed views on this lens, maybe there is some sample variation. I have not used my 28-70 much, and when I do it's usually for landscape work, tripod mounted and stopped down to f8 or f11. My lens certainly performs well in this range. I've also been using it as a general purpose lens on my D50 and it performs well here also.

 

I wonder, if you really want a compact wideangle which does not flare, you may be better off with a prime lens. The AI 20/3.5 is brilliant for shooting into the sun, the 28/2 is also excellent.

Thanks again,Roland.Till now I haven't received the 28-50/3.5 yet.Must be across the Atlantic by now.

 

I have thought about the 28/2.But first I'll have a look waht I'm going to do with the twoo zooms in this range. :)

Did you get the 28-50 yet? I have that lens and have been using it with an FM2 while hiking for the last few years. It's ok, but I'm not in love with it or anything I've shot with it. The "one touch" zoom tends to slide out slowly as I carry it. I don't do newspaper/brick wall tests so I can't comment on that, but my sense is that it's not the best lens I have. I got it hoping to get a nikon version of the tri-elmar. Can't say that it's quite that.

 

I'd love to get a little broader reach on the short end, but the 25-50 seems like it's a lot bulkier and heavier. I've also tried the 24-50's but the AF versions didn't feel great on my FM2.

 

I'm eager to hear your comparative impressions.

 

btw, for those of you with the 28-50: The dedicated clamp on metal shade/rock bash guard for it is the beefiest thing ever. If you use this lens outdoors, it's definitely worth getting if you can find it.

I will have it tomorrow morning.It arrived on the 25th in Belgium but the courier service came only today with the 28-50mm to our place.We were all out working and the children off to school so I'll get it myself tomorrow morning.

 

I hope it will be a fine lense.Anyway,or I will sell a mint 25-50/4 or a mint 28-50/3.5 because I won't keep the two of them.I'll take some comparative pictures with them but it's difficult to compare lenses in a quick way (or the 28-50mm must be really unsharp,the 25-50mm is a sharp lense but I don't like the separate two rings for focussing and the viewangle)

<p>I have two of them, and using as a standard walk around lens on my Df lately. It is a sharp lens and excellent in color, and contrast. The only problem if you don't have the original hood, HK-12, none of the hoods fit to this lens, not even the HN-1 at 28mm range, filter on the lens. And I hate to use a lens without a proper hood. Without filter the HN-1 is ok. "Mint" is not a question if the glass is mint. Cosmetic condition on the barrel mens nothing for me. Recently I bought a 80-200mm f/4 AI-S lens, ( I'm own a AF-S 70-200mm f/4 VR ) loose zooming ring, little sign of use on the barrel, then, when I noticed how sharp this lens, I was hunting, shopping for a mint, no zoom creep lens, I got it and now selling it, because the "mint" lens was not as sharp as the previous bought, not so "mint" 80-200/4 lens.</p>

<p>9 years later a search for a mint sample must be even more difficult? I've read reviews of the 25-50mm from 4 recognizable well known sources. Not one of them mirrors the other. I owned 2 samples. In the mirrorless world or when compactness is more necessary if not down right practical the 25-50 is a loser, bigger, heavy, bulkier, and it's age is starting to show as they are becoming sloppy mechanical wise with age, wear, and tear. I don't believe in personal opinions regarding IQ. I find it disturbing when one of these reviewers claims some "magical presence" regarding the images rendered because far too many people accept these comments as factual and repeat or ehco it as fact as if they know or own one. To me that's more about personal fondness and less about real world practical use. The 25-50 is sharp but not as sharp as a inexpensive Nikkor 28mm F3.5. An old CZ Jena Flektogon 25mm has tremendous close up ability if you need a wide angle for that.<br>

If you desire no glare, then get a inexpensive Nikkor 28mm F3.5 a pocket lens and you don't need a hood. Of course the CRC 28 2.8 is faster and focuses closer, but for street scenes in the evening and at night in this higher performing ISO world today "faster" is almost irrelevant and what really matters is glare and flair control of which the old 28 3.5 is a champion<br>

<br />I would carry a Nikkor 28 f3.5 and just about about any 50mm 1.7/1.8 (all pocket sized) or use just one only along with my feets to zoom it and get better results with less issues. But if I'm lazy, and I am at 61 years old, I'd hands down pick the 28-50 and never look back at a 25-50 ...which is a very nice lens btw and no doubt sharp at 25mm. But when I'm not lazy, Nikkor's 28 3.5, 35 F2 (if it wasn't a glare/ghost monster,) and a 50 1.8 will achieve better results. Also a used 25-50 with all that massive internal stuff and alignments inside, reminds me of a one of those guys juggling and spinning plates all at once? Whew is that easily misaligned over 35 years of life...ya think? Consider how old a 25-50 was when reviewed and factor that in, because at my age I guarantee something other then my age and skin has changed....and that's my opinions. <br>

Try finding a mint 25-50 and if you do there must be a reason it is mint and has not been used so much. I found a 28-50 mint with a hk-12 and I'm quite pleased and maybe there was some reason it was not used, I'm so pleased off went the 25-50 to a new home and quickly so...it's a load </p>

<div></div>

<p>Let´s not be unfair to the 25-50mm. Just a week ago I used my sample again and with a D700 found the optical quality admirable(!!). I own two samples of the 28-50mm, both very good but slightly weaker in the corners. Of course they are more compact, as is the 28mm f3,5 lens, one of the first three lenses I ever owned.</p>

It's regretful that the OP never did follow up with his evaluation of the 28-50 against his 25-50.

 

Sorry, I forgot that adding to this thread would put it back on the front page of the forum index.

"It's regretful that the OP never did follow up with his evaluation of the 28-50 against his 25-50."

 

- That happens a lot. The OP hasn't logged in again since 2014.

 

I do wonder why he wanted to change a perfectly good f/4 lens with greater range for a perhaps inferior one with only 1/3rd stop aperture advantage.

 

FWIW, I bought a plastic-fantastic 35-80mm Nikkor zoom for absolute peanuts at a car boot sale. The IQ is amazing for such a cheaply-made little lens. Obviously not in the same optical league as my Tamron SP VC 24-70 f/2.8, but with one-quarter its size, even less of its weight, and costing an even tinier fraction of the price. As a standard to short tele on DX, it makes a good addition to the kit.

 

(Actually, it's so small I've mislaid it in a house move. I really must dig it out!)

FWIW, I bought a plastic-fantastic 35-80mm Nikkor zoom for absolute peanuts at a car boot sale. The IQ is amazing for such a cheaply-made little lens.

 

This is mildly interesting to me. I am actually looking for a cheap & cheerful "normal zoom". I'm considering whether to start a new thread about this very boring search.