28mm f2.8 Ais

[roman_thorn]

Hi everyone! My previous question was regarding the 28mm f2.8 Ais....sorry for

the confusion. however I am sitll wondering if this is a good substitute for

the 35mm f2 D.................Pro's ...Con's?

[yoni_perlmutter]

It's a fine lens. I don't know what it might be a "substitute" for

but it is an excellent 28mm lens - 42mm on a DSLR.

I use mine quite a bit together with a 50 and a longer FL lens for

a light 3-lens outfit.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a negative comment posted about this optic;

opinion seems to be unanimous, or nearly so.

[pamv]

I use mine as the "normal" lens of my D200, it is an excellent, all around lens.

[yoni_perlmutter]

I am not familiar with the 35/2 but I wouldn't be surprised if the 28mm

would produce better close focus results.

[jim_momary]

I presume you are talking about the one that close focuses to 0.2m. See Ken Rockwell for his adoration. However, I have this particular unit, plus a 20mm AF, a 50mm f1.8 AF and a 35mm f1.4 AIS as my prime lenses. Comparing the 28, 35 and 50 against my zooms, they win in resolution and contrast particularly when stopped down two stops from full open. My zooms are older, non-pro ones like the 18-35, 70-210 AFD, 28-85 and etc. The 28 is sharper than anything in my bag of glass by a decent margin. I recently had printed a landscape subject to a 20x30" print from the 28mm AIS; that was done on tripod, at f8 and under ideal lighting. I was blown away by the crisp detail even when enlarged beyond a rational size. I use it a lot as a "normal" prime, but if I'm busy chasing my grand daughter around I have to resort to AF lenses. The 28mm will NEVER be sold by me as long as I have my mitts wrapped around a Nikon camera. The 28 works well on my gear which comprises a D200, N90s and a couple of F4s. Jim M.

[tonybeach]

"...it is an excellent 28mm lens - 42mm on a DSLR."

 

> There is an endless parade of confusing (or confused) posts like this. The lens is 28mm and does not magically change its focal length because it is used on a different format camera. I could just as easily say that a 28mm becomes an 19mm lens on FX or film formats.

[vivek iyer]

A fine lens with plenty of UV transmission. Flares beautifully as well.

<p>

<a href=" title="Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1244/569680586_a512e55121.jpg" width="500" height="354" alt="" /></a>

<p>

<i>False color UV capture. 28/2.8 on D70, Baader U 2" (band pass filter), SB24 fill flash </i>

[albert_smith]

<I>...wondering if this is a good substitute for the 35mm f2 D.................Pro's ...Con's?</I><P>

 

I guess I'll make a case for the 35mm f/2.0. The 35mm focal length was my standard for decades on the many film cameras that I used. Now that I have a digital SLR that does not meter with my manual focus AI / AIS Nikkors, I dug out my old 35mm f/2.0 AF Nikkor that sat unused for the better part of a decade (since I got the very fine f/1.4 Nikkor), and put it on the DSLR. This lens is now giving me the angle of view of a longer lens, but it has still been living on my camera since I put it on.<P>

 

What I like:

 

The speed (aperture) is usually enough for me to not have to use flash.<P>

 

The combination of the slightly longer (than the 28mm that you ask about), and slightly faster (than that same lens) makes for the ability to use both deep focus techiques <I>and</I> selective focus. This make the lens more versitile for me,and I am usually shooting at f/2.0 just to get this effect.<P>

 

The 35mm f/2.0 AF lens focuses very close, and while not a true macro lens, it can get shots with detail of small items, and at the same time give context. I'll post a minimal distance shot to show this.<P>

 

The lens is light and small, and on my small DSLR, I have a nice minimalist kit that can give results much better than any P&S, while not having the profile of a huge f/2.8 zoom... which is still slower.<div></div>

[albert_smith]

and detail from that shot...<div></div>

[albert_smith]

and a time when f/2.8 would not have been enough...<div></div>

[robert_moser1]

If you can find one, a 28 f2 is a great lens. Unfortunately, they're rather rarer than the 2.8.

 

Rob

[yoni_perlmutter]

Excuse me for quoting myself:

 

"I don't think I've ever seen a negative comment posted about this optic; opinion seems to be unanimous . . . "

 

I believe Mr Iyer has posted a negative comment about the 28mm so I shall amend what I'd written to:

 

I don't think I've ever seen a negative comment posted about this optic; opinion seems to be unanimous, except for Mr Iyer's post.

 

It's equivalent to a 42mm FOV on a cropped 1.5 sensor camera so for all intents and purposes it may be considered as a 42mm lens on a

DSLR as that is the effect.

 

For all I know the 35/2 or 28/2 may be better lenses. I cannot compare them to the lens in question because I have never shot with them.

 

The enclosed pic is from my 28/2.8 with either a PK13 or Nikon 52mm

double achromat (do not recall which - but probably an achromat).<div></div>

[tonybeach]

"It's equivalent to a 42mm FOV on a cropped 1.5 sensor camera so for all intents and purposes it may be considered as a 42mm lens on a DSLR as that is the effect."

 

> No, I insist that it is a 19mm on an FX format, as I own and use DX format cameras.

[yoni_perlmutter]

The 28mm designation is for a 35mm film (or FF - DSLR FX format) camera.

 

It would remain a 28mm lens even if you were to mount it onto a view camera. But the FOV on a DX camera is that of a 42mm lens due to sensor cropping.

 

I suppose that's the reason why some DX shooters use this lens as their "normal" on their D200s, as I sometimes do.

[leif_goodwin8]

Mine is an excellent lens: sharp, good contrast and excellent close up performance. But it can sometimes show severe purpling in high contrast situations on a D200.

[vivek iyer]

<i>It would remain a 28mm lens even if you were to mount it onto a view camera.</i>

<p>

No, it will not. The projected image circle would exceed that of a 24x36 frame (at infinity) and you will get a larger coverage. :)

<p>

I did not post anything negative. I discovered its use for UV and I am very happy about using it for such applications! I will even take a heptagonal Sun when it performs like this! :)

[yoni_perlmutter]

Pardon my ignorance. I understood your comments to be negative.

As you say, they were not. My mistake.

 

Why do you regard the "flaring properties" of this lens to be a good thing?

 

Which [new] focal length would the 28/2.8 acquire if mounted on a view

camera? I was unaware that focal lengths changed due to the platforms

from which they are used.

 

As I recall, focal length is the distance from the lens to the film/sensor plane focused on a subject at infinity. If a 28/2.8

were placed at the same distance from the film plane how would the kind or size of camera make a difference?

 

The "crop factor" [FOV] would most appreciably change, but why the focal length?

 

Anyway, thank you for responding.

[vivek iyer]

<i>Why do you regard the "flaring properties" of this lens to be a good thing?</i>

<p>

The example posted is full of it and makes the image.

<p>

<i>I was unaware that focal lengths changed due to the platforms from which they are used.</i>

<p>

That is good. It does not. Confusion comes with the "40mm equiv." w.r.t. APS-C sensors and crop statements. Some object to it. It does not bother me one bit.

<p>

I just don't like to read "back focus" problems of a lens when it is actually "focus errors" of a camera.

[paul heskes]

Roman<br>The Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIs is without doubt one of the finest wide angle lenses Nikon ever produced. Being able to focus from 20cm with CRC (close-Range Correction), being very sharp and pretty contrasty.<br>If I was sticking with my manual gear and I didn't already have one, that lens would definitely be on my shopping list.<p>However, you intend to use it on the D300, where "as already stated" it becomes the equivalent of 42mm. You may find it difficult to find a good copy and if you can, good copies still command a good price, which brings you into the realms of a new 35mm F2.<P>The 35mm F2 AF-D "52.5mm equivalent" in itself is a superb performer being extremely sharp, contrasty and in my opinion, optically, right up there with the 50mm primes it replaces due to the crop factor.<p>You don't say what you intend to use it for but, if you just want a small and light, fast, extremely sharp, contrasty walk around lens, then I would suggest the 35mm F2. Buy new though, as there are many out there suffering from oil on the aperture blades due to a leaking helicoid which I believe was fixed around 2000, although Nikon never admitted to the problem in the first place.<div></div>

[tonybeach]

For Yoni:

 

"The 28mm designation is for a 35mm film (or FF - DSLR FX format) camera."

 

> It is not a "designation", it is the focal length of the lens.

 

"It would remain a 28mm lens even if you were to mount it onto a view camera. But the FOV on a DX camera is that of a 42mm lens due to sensor cropping."

 

> Too bad that you insist on being half right. If you had just said this I would have no objection, but you go and say things like "42mm on a DSLR" and that 28mm is a "designation". Arguing that something becomes the "equivalent" of something else ignores -- or worse yet -- confuses the FOV with magnification and optical properties.

 

"I suppose that's the reason why some DX shooters use this lens as their "normal" on their D200s, as I sometimes do."

 

> I also own a version of this very lens, the one that focuses at .2 meters in fact (there is a version that focuses to .3 meters and the two should not be confused with one another). Unless I'm shooting very close or into the sun, I find the lens to be too soft for my tastes; but I may be biased because I almost always use a Nikkor 17-35/2.8 at that focal length. My copy is sharper though than the Nikkor 28/2 or the variable aperture zooms I have tried.

[sjmurray]

For what its worth, my copy of the 28mm 2.8 ais is a tiny bit softer than my other lenses at infinity, although it is very nice at close ranges. I've been happy with it even wide open for "environmental" portraits. For general shooting especially in low light I prefer my 35mm f2.

[ellis_vener_photography]

A 28mm lens is a 28mm focal length lens no matter what size format you are using to record the imagege on.

 

Yes the field of view on a DX /APS-C format camera is that of a 42mm lens on a 24-36mm /FX format camera. But in all other aspects (like depth of field at a given f-stop it is still performs the way all other 28mm lenses perform at that f-stop.

 

Now if you if you have the lens on a DX format camera and you move backwards to photograph a larger area you've changed your point of view -- changing the perspective rendering and the depth of field rendering at a given f-stop -- because you've changed the relative distances between the objects in the scene and the camera.

[vivek iyer]

<b><i>a rose is a rose is a rose</i></b>

<p>

Miss Stein might not agree with that analogy.

<p>

OTOH, it is a good approximation, <b>assuming</b> all the lenses of various focal lengths involved are true flat field lenses and do not change their behavior when the magnification is changed.

<p>

In that sense, in the real world, XXmm "equivalents" instead of the true focal lengths does not bother me at all.

[tonybeach]

"OTOH, it is a good approximation, assuming all the lenses of various focal lengths involved are true flat field lenses and do not change their behavior when the magnification is changed."

 

> This is precisely the kind of mixed up comparisons that lead to so much confusion. Magnification is a function of focal length and distance. Now if you change the distance you also change the DOF, so this idea that "a 28mm lens becomes a 42mm lens" is patently wrong. When you change the focal length to accomplish the same FOV you end up with less magnification and a deeper DOF.

 

"In that sense, in the real world, XXmm "equivalents" instead of the true focal lengths does not bother me at all."

 

> Then my proposal to call a 28mm lens a 19mm equivalent should not bother you. If you say it is confusing to say so, then you are proving my point. A much more useful approach is to describe the focal length and FOV characteristics between formats as degrees of coverage. Increasing numbers of photographers have done all or most of their shooting on cropped formats, some are also familiar with larger formats (on a 4x5 camera your 28mm lens is now a 90mm "equivalent"), I bet the majority of photographers in this forum and most everywhere else mostly shoot in DX format; so making 135 film or FX formats the benchmark format is analogous to saying that the Earth is the center of the solar system.

[vivek iyer]

<i>..my proposal to call a 28mm lens a 19mm equivalent should not bother you.</i>

<p>

Not the least. Call it Omega if you want. :) None have any bearing on the original post regarding the 28/2.8 AiS manual focus lens or the 35/2 AF-D.