On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:06:25 -0500, "Bob Fowler"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3e03a7bc.3904758@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:49:26 -0500, "Bob Fowler"
>>
>> >"Kevin Neilson"
>> >news:yarK9.139246$pN3.9631@sccrnsc03...
>> >> The 28 f2.8 AIS is sweet. Definitely don't get the f3.5.
>> >> -Kevin
>> >I'm jumping in a little late here, but...
>> >The 28mm f/2.8 AIS is THE Nikkor 28 to have - if you're only having one.
>> >Having said that... The older 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor H C (pre-ai) is a good
>lens,
>> >but has one fatal flaw, you must use a thin ring type polarizer or you'll
>> >lose the corners to the lens hood. This lens is VERY good when used
>> >reversed on a bellows or extension tubes which is about the only reason I
>> >still have one, though it doesn't spend much time in my "working" bag.
>> >
>> >The 28mm f/2.8 AI is a good design, but doesn't have the CRC of the AIS.
>To
>> >be honest, I really don't see much difference in day to day shooting
>between
>> >the AI and the AIS lenses, but I'm seldom shooting things where the
>slight
>> >barrel distortion that almost all Nikkor wide angle lenses have is an
>issue.
>> >The AIS does focus closer than the AI and is an 8 element design vs a 7
>> >element design.
>> I assume, from the above, that you do not print, or
>> do not care about good edge/corner sharpness...;-)
>> The original-design 28mm f3.5, the 28mm AI, the 28mm
>> f2.8 E all generally have poor edge/corner sharpness
>> unless well stopped down (and even then, it could be
>> marginal); the 28mm f2.8 AIS, 28mm f3.5 later-design,
>> and the two PC 28mms are all good at least across
>> the frame and almost to the corners wide-open (the "D"
>> and the 28mm f2 and f1.4 are "inbetweeners", good
>> stopped down some [with the f2 being exceptionally good
>> by f5.6...]). See: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html,
>> with several samples of most checked...
>Well, the page you provided the link to DOES say "a listing of SUBJECTIVE
>performance". It doesn't specify which "28mm f3.5 non-AI" model(s) were
>tested, nor does the list provide any test data for the 28mm f/2.8 AI. Don't
>judge the 28mm f/2.8 AI by the data for the E series lens, they are two
>different animals.
?????????
The 28mm f3.5 pre-AI (poor edges), 28mm f3.5 AI/AIS
(excellent edges), 28mm f2.8 E/AF (poor edges), 28mm f2.8
AI (poor edges), 28mm f2.8 AIS (excellent edges), 28mm f2.8
AF-D (so-so), 28mm f2 pre-AI/AI/AIS (excellent edges from
f5.6), 28mm f4 PC (excellent edges), and 28mm f3.5 PC
(excellent edges) are all individually listed, and rated,
often with multiple samples examined, at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html ...
>Allowing for sample variations (and a possible abusive past), I feel lucky
>that my 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor H C performs as well as it does. One problem with
>these lists of "lens tests" is that a lot of the lenses being tested have
>been around for a long time, and there is no way to be certain that they
>were treated kindly (aside from obvious physical abuse) in their past.
I owned two new, and have seen others in fine condition,
though condition (other than damage to glass) rarely affects
performance...
>RE: my own 28mm lenses, no, I don't usually shoot wide open, nor do I spend
>a lot of time with a 28mm on the camera in a studio situation.
With most WAs, I would not recommend shooting wide-open,
though a few particularly good wide-angle lenses are sharp
wide open (though a couple of those you mentioned are
generally so poor that even stopped down, they are not
very good...;-)
>Oh yes, I am ignoring the sarcastic remark about printing and caring about
>sharpness. Yes, I saw the smiley...
If you cut off the edges to make 4:5-proportion
images, or commonly crop, you may not see the poor
edges. And, some people do not see them, anyway...;-)
I have often seen here and elsewhere comments on how
sharp a lens is, when it is really sharp only in the
center - for some, this makes the lens "sharp", but for
me this makes the lens "unsharp"...