Henning
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #8 · Adapted Nikon PC-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 – Flawed but Fascinating | |
An interesting video about a lens that I bought as soon as it came out, and which I still have.
I'm retired now from my two professions: architecture and architectural photography. I studied physics (including optics) for six years before switching to architecture. When I started working in that field, I was at times out of work and started my commercial/architectural photography business to keep myself afloat. This worked well, and I kept it up.
In the late sixties I got my first SLR after shooting with Leicas RF's for a number of years. It was a Konica Autoreflex, and one of the first lenses I got for it was a used 35/2.8 PC Nikkor, which Konica made an adapter for. Interestingly, Konica had a metering arrangement so that correct exposure measurements could be made with the lens shifted, so the lens was actually easier to use in some ways on the Konica than ever on Nikons.
When I started my architectural photography business, I of course also got 4x5's; first a Cambo and then after the business took off a couple of Sinars and Cambo Wides and later also 8x10. With the 4x5's I used symmetrical wideangles of course and the linear distortion never reared its ugly head. In 35mm, which was used mainly for slide (colour transparency) use and projected, technical perfection was not as important because the important shots were all taken on 4x5. The 35mm lens had some distortions as well, but not as severe as the 28/3.5, or for that matter the 28/4 which I also got on the day that it was available. The 28/4 offered slightly less resolution, especially in the corners than the f/3.5, but was quite similar in most respects. I also traded my 35/2.8 PC for a Canon 35/2.8 TS and had it adapted to the Konica AR mount. That lens was, and is outstanding (for the time, of course). Optically it was a huge improvement over the Nikon in resolution, coverage and distortion correction. It was clunky to use however and I rarely used it handheld. I still have that lens, in part because it is difficult to find a buyer. Over the years I transitioned to the Nikon system as Konica abandoned SLR development and then later to Canon in the 90's as Nikon seemed to stagnate. I got Canon's 24/3.5 v.1 and then v2 and also the 17/4. The first Canon was a bit of a dog, but it was a 24. The v.2 was quite good, as was the 17 but by now both are looking a bit dated. Over the years I also tried others like the Minolta 35, the Zeiss/Contax 35, the Olympus 35 and 24, the Pentax 28 and the Super-Angulon 28. The latter in Leica mount is of course the same optically and operationally. Both the Pentax and Super-Angulon suffered from worse distortion than the Nikkor f/3.5, so no sale. I also tried some shift lenses for medium format cameras, but all except the Mamiya 50mm f/4 were rather huge, clunky, extremely expensive and unconvincing at the time. I used the Mamiya 50mm extensively since the Mamiy 645 system was ideal for my construction progress documentation.
The 28/3.5 PC Nikkor might not look that great from today's perspective, but it was an outstanding and unique tool at the time of introduction. I now lives on my Seitz 28/220 Roundshot where it covers the width of the 220 or 120 film fully and with some shift capability. Optical distortion is impossible and the lack of resolution and contrast at the extremes is rarely an issue. An ideal lens for that camera.
One note on the video - I know it is mentioned at one point, but it should be clarified: The lens was designed to be shifted up to 11mm vertically when the camera is held horizontally, and shifted up to 8mm horizontally and 7mm diagonally. Yes, there is falloff in optical performance in the corners even at those limits, but they were deemed acceptable at the time when stopped down to f/11. Beyond those limits all bets were off as the lens designers made no claims or particular efforts for performance beyond those boundaries. Distortion was unfortunately a fact of life at that time for retrofocus wideangles, and again unfortunately, Nikon was not the best at controlling that. Konica's 21mm f/4 was notably better than Nikon's 21 at that time, as was Canon's 20mm. I tended to use a Leica M 21/3.4 Super-Anglon and Leica/Zeiss Hologon for the wider angles in the 70's and 80's, and they were essentially distortion free and symmetrical.
|
