p.1 #1 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
I've read a lot about this lens, (28mm f2.8 AI-S) the way it sounds is that it's one of the best lenses Nikon ever... according to the internet anyway. I have some older AI- and AI-s lenses and I have been an admirer of the AI-S line since I got my FM-2 in 1984.
As I understand it while most AI and AI-s lenses are optically the same this version is completely different and the engineers went over the top in designing it.
I've recently acquired D810 and a D4. I am good to go in primes and zooms from 60mm to 500mm.
like prime lenses, I'll probably own a copy of this one at some point along with some wider angle primes. For the D and AI versions, those are relatively cheap.
Does this lens actually live up to its reputation? If you have some examples I would greatly appreciate seeing them.
I am slo tossing around the thought of just getting a 24-120mm f4 or maybe the Sigma 24-105mm - for all the obvious reasons one gets a zoom lens. Does the 28 prime have enough mojo that it would out perform one of those zooms at 28mm, given the difference in age ?
Right now on the used market that Nikkor 24-120 seems like a good value at under $400. The 28mm is going for about $350.
p.1 #3 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
I have one and I like it. But it’s optimized for closer focus distances and the edges aren’t that great at infinity, not even stopped down to f/11..
In terms of image quality, I think the 24-120 will probably at least match it. But it’s such a different proposition. Size and weight difference alone…
I‘d also take a look at the Voigtlander 28mm. I think it might actually be a bit better than the Nikon Ai-S.
p.1 #4 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
i still have my 24-120/since it came out. used it religiously on the D850 lastly till i sold that body. syll have it as it is a very versatile lens. in my sort of shooting a good zoom is more advantageous in its vaersatility. so when i got the Z9 i got the 24.120/4 for the Z mount. as was said above use cases are your best guide.
p.1 #5 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
RoamingScott wrote:
Thought 1: the uses cases for a MF 28 prime and an AF 24-105/120 are quite different…you should buy the one that satisfies the most use cases for you.
Sounds like you have $400 burning a hole in your wallet to me.
My wallet is made of asbestos.
Do you or did you own the Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S?
p.1 #7 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
fjablo wrote:
I have one and I like it. But it’s optimized for closer focus distances and the edges aren’t that great at infinity, not even stopped down to f/11..
In terms of image quality, I think the 24-120 will probably at least match it. But it’s such a different proposition. Size and weight difference alone…
I‘d also take a look at the Voigtlander 28mm. I think it might actually be a bit better than the Nikon Ai-S.
that's the sort of insight I am looking for. Most of my experience indicates that even modern kit lenses are pretty good.
essentially the zoom at 28mm and the prime will do exactly the same thing, it's a question of will the prime do anything better than the zoom.
I do greatly enjoy shooting with primes and there is a part of me that loves beautifully built lenses rather than the otherwise great , but plasticky things.
It's even smaller than the Nikkor and it's freaking beautiful.
It looks to me like the close focus on the zoom is 15" the prime is 7" and like you said it has CRC- I am not sure exactly what that would mean in real world examples.. Do you have any examples prime at close focus? I searched on Flickr and don't see any great examples.
If this lens has some unique capabilities up close that could be a big selling point over a zoom.
Nikon made that prime from 1981 till at least 2013. There has to be a reason.
p.1 #8 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
KankRat wrote:
Does this lens actually live up to its reputation?
In the film era I had the AI-S 25-50/4. I swapped it for the AI-S 28/2.8. I didn't notice any improvement in image quality so I regretted selling the (more versatile) zoom.
Did I answer your question?
p.1 #10 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
CATProductions wrote:
I have the 28mm f/2.8 AIS and also the 35mm f/2 AIS and actually find the 35 better. Could be sample variation though?
Yeah, this the problem with this topic. Especially with lenses this old, that we have no idea what life they've lived. I've had I two 28/2.8s over the years that were really excellent (one of them perhaps as sharp [though I don't think as colorful] as my 28/2.8 Elmarit-R II) and a third that was just fine. I've also had a 28/2 that was just fine, though some people's copies are as good or better than the 2.8.
p.1 #11 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
KankRat wrote:
Does this lens actually live up to its reputation?
Yes and no. It's not the brilliant, genius, as-good-as-Leica lens that the hypesters describe. It's not junk either...as is the case with most of the old Nikon MF primes, it has valuable qualities and usefulness for certain tasks. It is the user's task to find out what types of shots any particular lens is best at. This and the 28/2 F/K/Ai/Ais are the two best Nikon manual focus 28's from this period.
I recently had my 30+ year-old 28/2.8 AiS serviced at the Nikon west coast shop. I shot casual tests using a Nikon Z8 + FTZ.
Assuming the Nikon shop put the 28/2.8 AiS back together correctly, here is what I've found:
The 28/2.8 AiS is always ultra sharp in the central area (≈18mm circle) at any f stop.
The lens has low distortion, which makes viewing and composing much nicer than lenses with visible distortion, eg my Zeiss ZF 28/2.
The lens works very well if the critical sharpness is mainly needed in the central zone.
The outer zones of an image may or may not be sharp, depending on the distance to the subject.
The plane of focus seems to be very irregularly curved at distance,(based on my improvised, non-scientific tests) which leads to some objects towards the outer zones and sides of the frame never being completely as sharp as the center, even at very small stops like f/11. Other objects in the outer zones, but not at the centrally focused distance, may be very nicely sharp and look great.
I have gotten very nice shots with this lens in the closer-than-one-meter range, where I suspect that the field curvature flattens out at bit.
I'm not near my "photo computer" right now, and don't know if I can post photos. If I can, I'll post some boring test shots if you like.
p.1 #12 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
Totally different use cases for a 24-120 vs the 28/2.8 AI-S. I own the Z 24-120,28/2.8AI-S and 28/2AI-S; each is. Good copy. The 28/2.8 AI-S is indeed sharpest in the central regions especially at closer focusing distances an not optimized against flare. A good copy of the 28/2 is more flare resistant and ha more uniform sharpness across the frame.
The Nikon manual lenses are not junk. They are just older designs that have lived carrying lives and naturally are not going to measure up to lenses with modern computer aided design tools and more advanced manufacturing/coatings/etc. They are still photographically capable. In most cases the best lenses are likely to share feature/design/age with the camera bodies you are using. That doesn’t preclude you from shooting in M mode with manual aperture, shutter speed and focus control. The long running MFNG thread is proof enough that the active practice of photography I not important than keeping up with the photographic joneses. A 28/2.8 or any other manual lens that suits rendering style or focal length is worth trying if you have the means nd want to try it.
p.1 #13 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
Keith B. wrote:
I have gotten very nice shots with this lens in the closer-than-one-meter range, where I suspect that the field curvature flattens out at bit.
Thanks. I would appreciate seeing these if possible.
p.1 #14 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
huddy wrote:
Totally different use cases for a 24-120 vs the 28/2.8 AI-S. I own the Z 24-120,28/2.8AI-S and 28/2AI-S; each is. Good copy. The 28/2.8 AI-S is indeed sharpest in the central regions especially at closer focusing distances an not optimized against flare. A good copy of the 28/2 is more flare resistant and ha more uniform sharpness across the frame.
The Nikon manual lenses are not junk. They are just older designs that have lived carrying lives and naturally are not going to measure up to lenses with modern computer aided design tools and more advanced manufacturing/coatings/etc. They are still photographically capable. In most cases the best lenses are likely to share feature/design/age with the camera bodies you are using. That doesn’t preclude you from shooting in M mode with manual aperture, shutter speed and focus control. The long running MFNG thread is proof enough that the active practice of photography I not important than keeping up with the photographic joneses. A 28/2.8 or any other manual lens that suits rendering style or focal length is worth trying if you have the means nd want to try it....Show more →
If you have examples you shot with the prime, that would demonstrate what it is good at, something not likely achievable with the zoom I would greatly appreciate it.
Every image in this gallery was made with the 28/2.8 AI-S. Nice compact lens. I like it pair a 28 with 85 or 105 as a two lens kit for lightweight travel. I have both the 2.8 and 2.0 versions. I could probably be critical and say the 2.0 is better but it would be tough to find a difference in real world photographs.
p.1 #17 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
KankRat wrote:
If you have examples you shot with the prime, that would demonstrate what it is good at, something not likely achievable with the zoom I would greatly appreciate it.
My shooting with it has been exclusively for family photos so nothing I post online. I would recommend taking a browse through Flickr lens explorer/groups to see what this lens does at close distances or in general. The close focus alone can't be matched by the zoom and my experience with he classic MF Nikki 28's is that a moderately fast and compact 28 makes for a very versatile and compact lens for walking about while being wide enough for more broad landscpe work, tight spaces, and people without crazy distortion.
p.1 #18 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
KankRat wrote:
that's the sort of insight I am looking for. Most of my experience indicates that even modern kit lenses are pretty good.
essentially the zoom at 28mm and the prime will do exactly the same thing, it's a question of will the prime do anything better than the zoom.
I do greatly enjoy shooting with primes and there is a part of me that loves beautifully built lenses rather than the otherwise great , but plasticky things.
It's even smaller than the Nikkor and it's freaking beautiful.
It looks to me like the close focus on the zoom is 15" the prime is 7" and like you said it has CRC- I am not sure exactly what that would mean in real world examples.. Do you have any examples prime at close focus? I searched on Flickr and don't see any great examples.
If this lens has some unique capabilities up close that could be a big selling point over a zoom.
Nikon made that prime from 1981 till at least 2013. There has to be a reason.
I don't have too many pictures from my 28mm f2.8 online. But I have it with me in Rome right now, so will probably share more once I'm back and done with editing.
Here are a few, including two not-so-scientific test shots on the Z7 (full size on flickr): Raisting bw2 by Felix, auf Flickr
I think the comment that was made above about complex field curvature of the 28mm f2.8 Ai-S is correct. If I focus on the center at infinity then I think the corners are out. Probably better to focus this lens on the mid-field or maybe even the corners.
Lastly, my flickr albums reminded me that the good old AF-D 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 might be an interesting alternative. It's a standard zoom, but much more compact than the 24-120mm. I was impressed how well it holds up on the Z7 when stopped down, though I'd have to check the extreme corners at 28mm.
Every image in this gallery was made with the 28/2.8 AI-S. Nice compact lens. I like it pair a 28 with 85 or 105 as a two lens kit for lightweight travel. I have both the 2.8 and 2.0 versions. I could probably be critical and say the 2.0 is better but it would be tough to find a difference in real world photographs.
Excellent. Thank you. I heard the 28mm f3.5 is actually pretty good too. That one is pretty cheap.
p.1 #20 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
fjablo wrote:
I don't have too many pictures from my 28mm f2.8 online. But I have it with me in Rome right now, so will probably share more once I'm back and done with editing.
I think the comment that was made above about complex field curvature of the 28mm f2.8 Ai-S is correct. If I focus on the center at infinity then I think the corners are out. Probably better to focus this lens on the mid-field or maybe even the corners.
Lastly, my flickr albums reminded me that the good old AF-D 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 might be an interesting alternative. It's a standard zoom, but much more compact than the 24-120mm. I was impressed how well it holds up on the Z7 when stopped down, though I'd have to check the extreme corners at 28mm. ...Show more →
Thank you. Following you on Flickr.
That first shot is pretty cool. I really like it. The quality is nice too. This is really what I am after.
How much of that is the lens? Do you think you could have done just as well with the zoom?
