Ran into an old friend yesterday: My Nikon 28/2.8 AIS (0.2 m close focus)

[tom_mann1]

<p>While looking for a filter, I unearthed my old manual focus, 28 mm f2.8 AIS lens. I hadn't used it in years, so I decided to take it for a spin on my d700. I was blown away by the quality of the images it produced. Below is a comparison between it and my modern Nikon 105 VR macro (the 28 is on the left, the 105 on the right). Both images had the same camera settings and were processed identically. Both are in-camera JPGs, and the only processing was downsizing and (identical) sharpening after downsizing. Lighting in both cases was a single off-camera sb-900. I hand-held both the camera and the flash. I tried to maintain approximately the same magnification in both images. Obviously the working distance was different in the two cases, but, the difference was less than I had anticipated because the FL of the 105 VR decreases as you focus closer.</p>

<p>I had also forgotten just how nice Nikon classic manual focusing felt and the ease and comfort of using the aperture ring on the lens instead of a thumbwheel on the camera. The vastly smaller weight and size of the 28 also felt wonderful. It was like "going home".</p>

<p>Anyway, if you have some old quality lenses laying around, give them a try. You may be very pleasantly surprised.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[photo5]

<p>It certainly is a pleasure to use the manual focus Nikon lenses on Nikon digital bodies. This is why I am keeping all my Nikon lenses, and recently have been buying a few more. I was lucky to find a 28mm f2.8 AIS on ebay a few years ago for $100.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Yep, lots of $$ for some of these new lenses, and I haven't figured out the attraction yet. The older Ais are certainly a great choice. So is my old Tamron 28-80 SP which stays planted on my D200, it looks just as good, if not better than my friend's $1200 zoom on his D300....</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>The build quality is so much better too, and they were made in Japan at the apex of quality control.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Out of curiosity, could you mention the used aperture in both lenses?<br /> Why do you specify "<em>0.2m close focus</em>"? Many people do this. To the best of my knowledge there is <em>only one</em> 28/2.8 AiS lens. I wonder if I`m missing something.<br /> I try to remember that I have read in several places a reference to this lens as the "wide angle micro Nikkor". Certainly it is amongst the best...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>We used to use the f3.5 28mm for laydowns where the art was too big for our space to use the 55mm or 60mm micro. I think we found it just a touch better for that than the f2.8, but both were great.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Jose, both shots were taken at 1/60th, ISO=200, and f/22. I realize that at f/22, the resolution of both lenses was being significantly limited by diffraction, so resolution differences between the two lenses would be masked, but I just wanted to get a quick impression of the old lens. Later this weekend, if I get some time, I'll do a real resolution test with the camera mounted on a tripod, both lenses wide open, a better target, show 1:1 crops instead of down-rezed versions of the entire frame, etc.</p>

<p>WRT specifying the close focus limit as 0.2 m, I do this because I remember that when I bought this lens, everyone said to be careful not to get one of the Nikon 28's that have a 0.3 m limit because they are of a different optical design and produce poorer IQ.</p>

<p>I don't remember the exact history of this FL, but I'm pretty sure that as early as the mid or late 1960's when I was first building up my Nikon kit, there were pre-AI versions of the 28. I definitely remember seeing 28/2.8 AI (but not AIS) versions, and maybe even a cheap E-series 28/2.8. Working backwards from the most modern versions, the current 28mm / 2.8 AF-D version is disappointing wide open in the corners on FF and the same was true for the AF (ie, without the "D"). I'm sure about the AF-D version, because I tried it 5-10 years ago and didn't like it.</p>

<p>Where my memory fails me is that I can't say for certain if (a) there was a 0.3 m AIS, or (b) if there were any 0.2 m AI versions. Obviously, the latter would be pretty easy to distinguish from the 0.2 m AIS version. I'm sure other folks know the history of this focal length much better than me -- I just followed the "buzz" at the time and bought the 0.2 m AIS. I knew immediately it was a good lens, but moving forward to the present, I didn't expect it to be able to even come close to a modern true macro like the 105 VR.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Where my memory fails me is that I can't say for certain if (a) there was a 0.3 m AIS, or (b) if there were any 0.2 m AI versions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No to both - only one with 0.2m and that is the 28/2.8 AIS.<br /> This lens has recently become a favorite of mine again (on a D200) after being abandoned for a while. Really like the focal length and the close focus as well as the smooth manual focusing operation.<br>

I am also keeping the 20/4 AI (though not as useful as the 28/2.8 AIS but optically better than the current 20/2.8 AF) and the 105/2.5 AI. Would add the 200/4 AI/AIS but the F-mount modified Leica Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 fills that spot nicely. If I ever move to FX, then adding a 24/2 and 35/1.4 would get most of my jobs done.</p>

[samuel_lipoff]

<p>I think people call that lens the "28/2.8 AIS (0.2 m close focus)" because there was a 28/2.8 AI previously that had a close focus distance of 0.3 m. Without looking carefully, it's not easy to tell the difference between these two lenses. Incidentally, the 28/2.8 Ai-S may be an old friend, but I believe they are still being made! They should be easy to find on the used market (again just make sure you don't buy the Ai lens instead!), but you can also buy a brand-new one.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Without looking carefully, it's not easy to tell the difference between these two lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are in fact very easy to distinguish - the writing is on the rim of the focus ring for the AI version and inside the filter thread around the front element for the AIS version.<br /> http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ai2828a.jpg<br /> http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ais2828.jpg</p>

<p>28/2.8 AIS available via special order: http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1420/NIKKOR-28mm-f%252F2.8.html<br>

as is the 35/1.4 AIS http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1429/NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.4.html</p>

[greg_jones1]

<p>They are two very different lenses (albeit both 28mm). The one with 0.2 close focus is the AIS version, an 8 element, excellent version. The o.3 version is AI and had fewer elements. Check out Bjorn's website...the 0.2 close focus version is superb. Go to this link:<br>

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

<p> </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Excellent info! Thanks, guys!</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - I just checked out Bjorn's website. Thanks for the link. I remember reading his reviews some years ago, but I'll have to look it over again. It looks like my memory about the different models was pretty correct, except for not being sure if those two possible variants were ever made, and it looks like they were not.</p>

[chuck_fry1]

<p>what about the E series 28mm f2.8 ais is that the same thing?</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>The E-series is *very* different. It's discussed on Bjorn's website cited above.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[chuck_fry1]

<p>Is this the lens I should get?</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>I suspect Rorslett mention the focus distance issue to help identification.<br /> Just for fun I`m posting a pic with some of the differences between the 28s, the same for most Ai and AiS lenses. The 28/2.8 AiS is the one at top (min. focus distance 0.2m).<br /> <strong>Chuck</strong>, the lens Tom is talking about is the one in your link. Don`t know if you <em>should</em> take this one.. others could be interesting, too.</p><div></div>

[shineofleo]

<p>Oh I just sold this lense, now I am a bit sorry about it.<br>

It is good - low price, small size, and good picture qualiry. The downside is also obvious: MF but I think it is ok for macro work.</p>

[plasma181]

<p>I bought a used D-70 a few weeks back. I am using manual focus Nikkors on it, since that's all I have. Not only is the focus manual, but I the D-70 won't meter with manual lenses. So I have to use a light meter or chimp the histogram. Results have been pretty good.</p>

<p>http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10974356-md.jpg </p>

[photo5]

<p>Dave and Robert, I too have a superb Tamron zoom, the 17-35mm f2.8-4 SP Aspherical. I used it on my D700 and now use it on my F100. I did numerous comparisons with my Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS, and my Nikon 35mm f2 AI. I couldn't tell a difference between the two, the Tamron is that good. And I bought it in mint condition from ebay and a local seller for only $150. Apart from some vignetting at 17mm, I will take this lens over a $1500 Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 any day.</p>

[henryp]

<p>I had a 28/2.8 AI for years and one day with some extra $$ and frustration over low-light scenarios traded it for a 28/2.0. While I appreciated the extra stop in terms of both viewfinder brightness and shooting options, the weight difference was unexpected and surprising. Not a wise move in the long run.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[jphotog]

<p>I just bought an AIS 28mm f/2.8 on Ebay. It is supposed to be in "near mint" condition. Can't wait to start playing with it. I already enjoy the AIS 50mm f/1.2 on my D700.<br>

/Jonas</p>