Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #1 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
I used to use 28 & 50 (OM film) in the approximate range you are considering. Given you are mostly using it <60mm it's more synonymous vs 24-120 than you might expect although I don't recommend buying a wrong FL because it's sharper either.
I usually prefer af for most things although I use older lenses occasionally. The 24-120 has VR, too, although you're probably giving up optical purity to get the zoom range, actually a rather extreme range I don't think they get enough credit for that. Of course the 28 is lighter and mf at 28mm isn't as bad as say 300mm either could be OK
p.2 #2 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
I searched my archive and found this picture I took many years ago (20+ years ago) with the AI-S 28/2.8 & Fujichrome Velvia 50.
I'm not sure if a zoom could have produced a similar image, without ghosts/flare (don't ask me what aperture I used... I'm guessing something around 8-11).
p.2 #3 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
KankRat wrote:
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?
Thank you. I think any of my Nikon zooms covering 28mm would have done just fine. Of course sunstars and flare patterns are different between those, so don’t know how these elements would have turned out. My guess would be: different but not worse.
p.2 #4 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
Ripolini wrote:
I searched my archive and found this picture I took many years ago (20+ years ago) with the AI-S 28/2.8 & Fujichrome Velvia 50.
I'm not sure if a zoom could have produced a similar image, without ghosts/flare (don't ask me what aperture I used... I'm guessing something around 8-11).
Prior to seeing this photo I was pretty much resigned to getting the 24-120mm f4 and I may do so because it's going for a pretty good price now. I may still do that and hunt down a really good deal on a 28. I can completely see where a zoom might have all kinds of ghosts and flaring. This is a PERFECT example of something the 28 might be really good at.
It's an awesome shot too BTW.
Lots of talk about how good that lens is but not much in the way of great examples. Seems to be a common thread on the internet.
p.2 #5 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
Thank you. I think any of my Nikon zooms covering 28mm would have done just fine. Of course sunstars and flare patterns are different between those, so don’t know how these elements would have turned out. My guess would be: different but not worse.
I think the sunstar would be a pretty important in this shot. Though it's also really sharp and contrasty too. I like it a lot.
I have a Tokina 11-16 for my DX camera. This shot would not look as good.
p.2 #6 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
Thanks @KankRat@.
I think that we have to search for light, more than for lenses, in order to get decent pictures.
Be there and f/8
However, “be there” implies not only luck, but also perseverance and some effort.
p.2 #7 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
Ripolini wrote:
Thanks @KankRat@@.
I think that we have to search for light, more than for lenses, in order to get decent pictures.
Be there and f/8
However, “be there” implies not only luck, but also perseverance and some effort.
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.
Since I started this thread about a year ago, I ended up with a Nikon AF-S 24‑70mm f/2.8G ED which does everything I need- though it is rather gigantic.
I also managed to borrow a 28 2.8 AI-S from a friend. It was like new, like hardly used and purchased new very late in production as in around the last year it was made. It's a very nice lens and so small. I could literally put it in my pocket.
I did not do a "smackdown" of the prime vs. the zoom. Just from the couple shots I took with it, it was way sharp enough and gets lots of points for the size.
I have been playing with film on my FM2 and F3 more and more and I still don't have much wide glass to use with those.
A 28 f2 AI-S has emerged locally, not crazy expensive, about $200. It seems as if there is a whole lot more information out there on the 2.8 more than the 2. I'm probably going to have look over the weekend.
p.2 #10 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
KankRat wrote:
Since I started this thread about a year ago, I ended up with a Nikon AF-S 24‑70mm f/2.8G ED which does everything I need- though it is rather gigantic.
I also managed to borrow a 28 2.8 AI-S from a friend. It was like new, like hardly used and purchased new very late in production as in around the last year it was made. It's a very nice lens and so small. I could literally put it in my pocket.
I did not do a "smackdown" of the prime vs. the zoom. Just from the couple shots I took with it, it was way sharp enough and gets lots of points for the size.
I have been playing with film on my FM2 and F3 more and more and I still don't have much wide glass to use with those.
A 28 f2 AI-S has emerged locally, not crazy expensive, about $200. It seems as if there is a whole lot more information out there on the 2.8 more than the 2. I'm probably going to have look over the weekend....Show more →
I always treated my 28 f/2 as a 28mm slice of the 24-70 f/2.8G. They behave extremely similarly for landscape/astro/close-up's, so I never felt like I was leaving anything on the table by using the 28 for a lighter setup.
Compared to the 28 f/2.8 Ai-S, people say the f/2 is better with flare/ghosting and a bit sharper at landscape distances. I've not used the 2.8 to confirm that though, so take it for what it's worth. The 28 f/2 is still good close up because it has CRC, but bokeh in those situations will be better from the f/2.8. The 2.8 (and 24-70) also has a slightly better reproduction ratio than the f/2. Size-wise, the 28 f/2 is great fit on either FM or F3 family, but weight makes it more of an F3 lens for me.
I still use the 28 f/2 as one of my main lenses for the F2/F3, and would be using it on the Z8 if it weren't for the FTZ robbing it of its size appeal. The 28 f/1.5 Nokton has been a good alternative there. For my AF SLR's and DSLR's, I was still using the 28 f/2 up until I got a 28 f/1.8G. It's a bit bigger but actually a few grams lighter, so it's a good fit for those cameras. But if you told me to just have one to serve all the cameras, it'd be the 28 f/2 Ai-S.
Edit, and I agree with @deadwolfbones@ about the 28 f/3.5. I paid like $40 for a pre-Ai version. It's a remarkably nice little lens, but the earlier ones have a limiting MFD. I think later ones were better about that.
p.2 #11 · Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AI-S vs a Midrange Zoom ...Thoughts?
I am a 28mm fan, I have two copies of the 28mm f/2.8 AiS, one 28mm f/2 Ai, Sigma 28mm f/1.4 AF and most recently Voigtlander 28mm f/2 APO-Lanthar. I've also owned the 28mm f/2 AiS and 28mm f/3.5 Ai in the past (both also very, very good). The APO Lanthar to me is easily the best of the bunch, but the 28mm f/2.8 AiS is still one of my favorite manual focus Nikkor lenses, ever. I like the APO-Lanthar on the Z8, and the 28mm AiS on the D850 or F6.
