Hi--

Basically, it boils down to: the 2.8 AIS is very good

at all focus distances (good sample) at f2.8 and f4

(short far corners); the f2 is rather soft in the

corners at these stops, but "jumps"in performance

around f5.6, producing a slightly better image at

f5.6 than the f2.8. At smaller stops they equalize -

but overall, I prefer the 2.8 AIS. The AI version of

the f2.8 is a poor, different design; the f2 remained

about the same in all versions, including the non-AI...

The f3.5 AI/AIS is quite good also - good at f3.5, but

also bested at f5.6 by the f2. Best Nikkor 28mm: the

28mm f4 PC (not the f3.5), from about f5.6. I did not

like the one sample of the 28mm f1.4 I tried. At f5.6,

I also liked the 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 - it had greater

"brilliance" than the 2.8 or f1.4 28s - about the same

as the f4 PC(!).

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

Hey, take a gander at www.visitithaca.com, too...!

> David,

>

> I've been struggling to understand the various evaluations

for the Nikkor 28mm lenses. I've been using a 28mm f2.8 AIS

for some time and I am generally pleased - the close up

performance offers some interesting views but the infinity

performance is lacking something and I haven't pinned it down.

In looking at the on-line evaluations there seems to be a

crossover in the evaluations for the 28mm 2.0 and 2.8 versions.

Some rate the f2.8 better close up that at distance and others

seem to reverse that for the f2.0. I've been considering the

f2.0 as I would like to use this lens more for street

photography and I'm often out in the evening or night. It

sounds like the f2.0 holds up against flare, which would be

good for me because of the oft incorporated light points in

the late evening photography I often do.

>

> In your experience, am I giving up something to go with the

2.0 as opposed to the f2.8 AIS.

>

> Is there a performance (e.g. coatings, flare, ghosting,

contrast) difference between the AI and AIS versions of these

lenses.

>

> Thanks for your assistance.

>

> Regards,

> Roger