Looking for lens number 3...

[Ian Rance]

<p>When on walks for pleasure, family outings and on holiday I usually take my FM3a and a few primes stuffed in my pockets, however despite getting some good slides back I realise that my 'wide end' is not as good as the other pictures (bit flat with less colour and sharpness) and I am hoping you may have some guidance.</p>

<p>So, I take my 105mm f/2.5 - lovely 3D look with colour and sharpness that bring the moment back to life, my 45mm P - more of the same - everything looks so lifelike with this lens and again, there is the 3D feel that makes the audience comment. These lenses continue to impress me.</p>

<p>Now, the wide end. I have the 28mm f/2.8 and also the f/3.5 version. I also have the 35mm f/2.5 E. These are nice lenses, but lack the sparkle and clarity of the other two I use. Don't get me wrong - they are fine lenses, but for my slides it shows when a lens really has something special. Now, is there a wide in the 28-35mm range that has a bit of the 105mm f/2.5 in it? I don't mind something from another manufacturer, but hoping that it is not too expensive.</p>

<p>To start, I hear good things about the 28mm f/2 Nikkor - does it have a nice 'look'?</p>

<p>Thanks for any ideas.</p>

[vincent_peri]

<blockquote>

<p>Now, the wide end. I have the 28mm f/2.8 and also the f/3.5 version. I also have the 35mm f/2.5 E. These are nice lenses, but lack the sparkle and clarity of the other two I use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 lens as well as an assortment of other wide/super wide Nikkors, and they all produce images equally as good as my other Nikkors. It beats me that you have a problem with your lenses. Perhaps you could post some photos so we can see what you mean.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_punch]

<p>I would suggest the 35 1.4 AIS, it's a great lens, similar impact to the 105 2.5 to me ....I have both</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Not sure which 28/2.8 you are refering to - I have the 28/2.8 AIS and I would certainly rank that in the same league as the 105/2.5 (of which I have the AI version). Can't comment on 35mm lenses - the only one I owned was the 35/2.8 - not worth writing home about. The 35 that impressed me was Leica's Summicron-R 35/2 - with the Leitax F-mount it can be mounted on your Nikons - stop-down metering only though. Sold mine since I like the Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH even better.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>It could be that you are having flare problems with your wideangles. If you are using a filter, remove it and use a shade made for that lens. W/A's are more subject to flare and a filter can make the problem worse.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Thanks for the ideas - I had forgotten about the 35 f/1.4.</p>

<p>Vincent, such differences are small - and only show on projected slides - on scanned film they are all equal. The slides using the 45mm and 105mm elicit comments like "I feel I could reach out and touch those rocks" and I do see a difference. Mark - it could be flare of some sort flattening the images. I was using a filter so I will try some photos without it.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I also think it could be mater of contrast. Also, wides has not as shallow DoF, and wide open usually are not that great. The 45P, perhaps because is a recent lens, gives high contrast sharp images. My mountain pics corroborate this.</p>

<p>The 35/1.4 is so soft wide open althought very sharp when closed to f5.6 or so; flare affect this lens considerably, you must take care of this while shooting. I`m afraid my 28/2.8AiS is not so contrasty, same for my 24/2.8Ai-AFD and 20/2.8AiS.</p>

<p>A good compromise could be the 28/2AiS, although very expensive. It`d be my choice, thought.</p>

<p>Which film do you use? If you already don`t use Velvia, perhaps it could be a good idea to switch to this kind of film with this lenses. What about anti-haze and polarizer filters?</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Jose, I use Kodachrome and Fuji Sensia. I have never tried Velvia to be honest - it never seems to be on the rack when I am choosing my films to buy. I will look for a roll to try though.</p>

<p>I use Nikon L1Bc and Nikon Polar filters.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Velvia is probably (I almost never used Sensia) the opposite to Sensia. It brings supersaturated colors, very high contrast chromes. There are different versions, being the classic Velvia 50 the most "radical" and Velvia 100F a bit softer version. Probaly the Velvia 50 version could be the more interesting (<em>the K-25 killer... </em>).</p>

[gary_watson]

<p>You might get a taste of what you're after with the 35/2.</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>Is what you're missing with the wide lens the shallow depth of field of the 105mm f/2.5AIS? You're just not going to get the subject isolation and sense of depth from an wide angle lens that you get with a telephoto. This is the nature of optics in these focal lengths.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Do you have the Nikon 28/2.8 AIS lens? I ask because it is said to be one of the best Nikon wideangles. These are affordable lenses, if you do not have this one. I have the 28/2 AIS and find it superb, although Bjorn seems to give the nod to the 28/2.8 AIS. Any previous 28/2.8 lens does not measure up well, in his opinion:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a></p>

<p>I also suspect you may be unfairly comparing your 28 to the 105. These two focal lengths are used for different purposes. The 105, just by being a telephoto lens, is going to have a narrower field of focus and because it is a well designed lens is going to render out of focus backgrounds very smoothly. These are the two characteristics that give your images that 3D feel, causing the subject to be isolated from the foreground/background.</p>

<p>A 28mm lens even at wide apertures has tremendous depth of focus and is specifically used at small apertures to create clear focus from just in front of your face to infinity! Effective use of wideangle lenses is much more dependent on successful compositions.</p>

<p>Note that your 45 and 105 are very highly rated by Bjorn, so you are likely going to have more success obtaining a similarly rated wideangle. Bjorn's reviews may not be perfect and his most highly rated lenses may not be appropriate for one's purposes or budgets, but I always consult them to provide a frame of reference. I bought my 28/2 AIS from reading his reviews and have been very happy. I bought my 135/2 AIS against his reviews and have also been very happy, although I must agree with him that for critical sharpness, when you have enough light, it helps to stop it down one or two. I also bought my 14/2.8 knowing Bjorn's reservations, but again, I am extremely happy with it. </p>

<p>But now I digress, have fun researching wideangles and good luck. Your English countryside deserves to be well recorded!</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Ian.... I'll throw my vote in the ring for the 28mm f/2 AIS. I would put that 28/2 up there with my favorite manual focus Nikkors, and I saw a clear difference when I shot it against my former 28mm 2.8 AIS. I don't even shoot it wide open that much. But at f/8 or so...WOW. There was a optical change from the AI to the AIS, but I have not shot an AI version and cannot comment on any differences in use.</p>

<p>Thanks for reminding me of a lens I haven't reached for in a few weeks. It will go on walkabout shortly!</p>

<p>If you are a fan of the lighter, shorter f/2.8, have you considered the possibility that you have a bad copy of the 28mm 2.8 AIS? Just an idea. I don't know how "bad" your 28mm shots are.</p>

<p>And if I can throw 2 more cents out there: I'll cast a vote <em>against</em> Velvia. It's just "too far", and the loss of shadow detail should not be forgotten. Try a roll of Provia.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Thank you for the comments. I don't expect miracles with my wide lens, but it would be nice to capture textures and colour a bit better. Yes, I do have the 28mm Ai-S, but for some reason I find my f3.5 is a bit better - sample variation?</p>

<p>It is nice to hear that the f/2 version gets a good write-up, and I will look for one turning up at my local shop. Concerning films, I am actually trying a few different ones now and will see how they turn out. Fuji names are a muddle - Sensia, Provia, Velvia - but the difference is not clear on the Fuji website.</p>

<p>Thank you, Ian</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>You're going to have to give up your Kodachrome as it's been discontinued. Sensia is Fuji's amateur line and Velvia and Provia are their pro lines. The difference between pro and amateur film is not quality. Film changes as it ages. Pro film is sold at point when its color is at it best and should be refridgerated or frozen to slow or stop the aging process. That way all rolls from the same batch should have consistant color.<br>

I never shot Fuji slide film (I shot Kodachrome and some E200 and E400, now I shoot only digital). From what I remember, Sensia is Fuji's film most like Kodachrome. Provia is similar to Sensia but more expensive. Velvia is known for its highly saturated and vivid colors.<br>

If you use filters, use multicoated filters. I use Hoya Super Multicoated 1B Skylight filters. They're a little more expensive, but when you add up what photography costs, it's a drop in the bucket. My rule of thumb is don't skimp on the cheap stuff.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Ian... There are three basic pro Fuji color transparency emulsions: Velvia, Provia and Astia.</p>

<p>I found I like Provia 100F best as it is the most neutral capture in my opinion, and it holds the shadows very well. My uncle and shooting buddy swears by Astia 100F. Some people love Velvia's super saturated colors, but (as I said in an earlier post), I feel it loses the shadow detail too fast. So it's a matter of taste like all films.</p>

<p>I would suggest you try a roll of Provia and a roll of Astia under similar conditions to see what <em>you</em> like, and maybe add a roll of Velvia so you can see what that "oddball" does, too. :)</p>

<p>Good luck on the 28mm f/2 hunt.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Mark and Joe - thank you both for the helpful comments - really appreciated.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[c_o1]

<p>I have the 28mm 3.5. Sometimes I love it, sometimes I don't. Have you ever run a test to see which apertures look the best, and then try to limit yourself to those? I also like the 3.5 because it is small.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>Be brave. The 20/3.5 is a very usable lens and a good performer.</p>