Comparison 25-50/4 AI with the 28-50/3.5 AIS

[dannyv]

I received my 28-50/3.5 AIS this morning and started to compare it with my 25-

50/4 AI.I like the 28-50 a lot more because of it's compactness,fast push&pull

system and it's 52mm filter size which is the same as my primes and 75-150/3.5

The 28-50mm really works fine but the one I bought is really almost like a new

one.Very smooth but enough friction to be very precise.Much faster and easier

than the two separate rings on the 25-50mm.

 

I wanted to take some comparative shots outside but the weather is very bad

here in Belgium at the moment so took some pics inside.I mounted the lenses on

my D1X and used a tripod and cable release.This is certainly not a scientific

test,just some comparative shots.The pictures were upsized to 80 percent of

the original ones and then I took a screenshot of the two next to one another.

 

I will post the F11 comparison below and the other ones (comparisons at F4-

F3.5,F5.6,F8,F11 and F16) are to be seen in my portfolio here on the site.the

pics on the left are 25-50mm and to the right the 28-50mm ones.

 

I was a little bit amazed to see that the 28-50mm seems to be somewhat better

at F5.6 and also at F8.I really thought the 25-50mm was going to be a lot

sharper.I pointed the 28-50 into the direction of a light source and it seems

to flare more easily than the 25-50m.Looking forward to hear your conclusions.<div></div>

[alan_wilder1]

Nice shots but I need clarification. Is the left image the 25-50/4 on all shots? Is the cropped subject in the center of the frame? Do you have a full frame image the get an idea of the degree of cropping? It might be nice to also see a comparison near the edge of the frame to help with performance comparison since I expect central peformance would be close between lenses of this caliber.

[dannyv]

Yes,all the shots to the left are the ones of the 25-50mm.The circled word is in the middleof the page.The crop is at 80 percent.I should have placed the page straight up instead of lying downwards.As a result of this sharp area below the circled word is smaller than the one above it.Sorry for this.First test ever made and so I'm moving on thin ice here :)

 

The shown picture underneath is the entire picture with the cropped area indicated.It's the picture with the 28-50mm at F11<div></div>

[dannyv]

I just added a comparative picture of the upper left corner to my portfolio.Again 25-50 on the left and 28-50 on the right and picture taken at F11.

 

Here is the smaller version.<div></div>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

Interesting. Looks as if Nikon continued to improve that range of zoom, not so wide but

faster smaller and looks like sharper. I have the 25-50 and I'll keep an eye out for the 28

-50.

[anthony_valvo]

I picked up the 28-50 about three years ago and have been consistently impressed by its performance. Its a great lens for travel, etc.

 

Thanks for the test. It confirmed my own experience. The lens is a real sleeper

 

Anthony

[dannyv]

I will use it as my standard walking lense together with the AFs 12-24/4 and the 75-150/3.5E.Not too heavy and reasonable quality.

 

I took some shots yesterday evening of a glowing lamp here at my desk and the 28-50mm also performed better than the 25-50.The 25-50mm images consistently showed a blurred light whereas the 28-50 showed a realistic view of the light source.Perhaps the interior of the lens surface of the 25-50 needs to be cleaned but as I can see it's really clean inside.The 25-50 is in absolute mint condition so I don't understand it.

 

Anyway,I put the 25-50 for sale on a wellknown auction site yesterday evening with a "buy it now"-option and when I switched on my PC this morning I saw that it was already sold during the night.It's packed and when the payment comes in it will go to a new owner acros the North Sea in Great Britain. :)

[albert_smith]

For me, size (or the lack of size) is important. I would never walk around with a lens as big as the 24-50 zoom for a 2 to 1 ratio and a moderate f/4 aperture. The 28-50 might lack a few degrees at the wide side, but at the end of a long day of shooting, I know which one I'd rather have on my shoulder.

 

 

One other important point that seems to mean nothing these days is that the 28-50 also has a set of depth of field scales, albeit less comprehensive than a true prime lens would have, but better than no scales like the 24-50. A 24mm setting with no ability to fully exploit the DOF with zone and hyper-focus it not as good as it could be. So besides the size, weight and slightly faster speed, the 28-50mm Nikkor also scores for those DOF scales that work at every focal length.<div></div>

[ray .]

I have the 35-70 for my FE2, which is nice, and have my sights set on the 28-50.

Like Albert

says though, it's the size and weight of the lens that makes it preferable to the 25-

50. I don't see the point of your tests- the results both look about the same to me,

and really, what difference does it make anyway once you get out and find a good

subject to photograph?

[charles_miller]

I used a 25-50 f4 AI lens for about year, nearly a decade ago. It was a great lens except that it gave lots of problems with flare. Otherwise it performed in a class with the 35-70 f2.8 AFD, which is a pretty amazing acheivement. But because of that flare situation, I would now choose the 28-50 model.