On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:38:48 -0800, Gordon Moat
>Gordon Moat
>Alliance Graphique Studio
>
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> 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...
>> David Ruether
>Now you have me a bit curious. When you are talking printing, I am assuming that
>you mean an enlarger. I have only done a few chemical prints from negatives
>originating from 28 mm, and mostly B/W at 8" by 10" or larger. I did notice a
>slight difference in the edges, though it seems to me that this changed more
>depending upon the enlarger lens, at least when viewing through the focusing
>loupe. Matching the total printing system, camera, lens, enlarger, enlarger
>lens, etc. should be a consideration; if one has a somewhat lower edge
>resolution enlarger, the choice of camera lens may be more critical, for
>example.
If people look at images projected with most slide
projectors, it is generally difficult to have the
edges and center focused at the same time (short
good alignment, glass-mounting, and using a good
flat-field projection lens), so poor edges might be
missed, as they also might be if B&W prints are made
with cropping of the edges for a 4:5 proportion...
And, you should see more differences at the edges with
a good enlarging lens than with a poor one...;-)
Best: viewing negatives and transparencies directly,
with good magnifiers - and this is what I do when
evaluating lenses... (the optical system is the same
for both center and edges/corners).
>Most of my imagery is done on transparency film, and then scanned. I may be a
>bit unusual in my usage, but I generally stop down to f8, f11, or smaller when
>shooting wide shots. With architectural shots, almost all of them are stopped
>down. I think it is important to mention, since probably not all photographers
>shoot wide open with wide angle lenses. Also, when individuals do shoot wide
>open, there seems to be more concern for the effects in the defocus areas, often
>at the edges.
Yes. I prefer to use lenses within their optimal
ranges (for not only stops, but focus distance).
If one wants to optimize DOF and lens sharpness,
using f8 or even stops as small as f16 with some
wide-angle lenses, is a good idea... (I avoid
stops smaller than f16 in 35mm due to the softening
effects of diffraction, though).
>It would be possible to buy better 28 mm examples, some from companies other
>than Nikon. However, I got the impression from the original poster that he was
>more interested in good value for the money, which the very low cost of many of
>the older AI and AIS lenses definitely qualify. The 28 Shift lens is better in
>some aspects, but not low cost, nor is it easy to use.
Yes, I agree - the best buy, though, is the 28mm
f3.5 AI/AIS, which one poster advised avoiding,
and not the f3.5 non-AI, which I advise avoiding,
if one really cares about performance. All the
28mm Nikkors perform about the same in the center
at all stops; the differences show at the edges and
corners...
>I think your reviews are objective, and do point out some good choices in 28 mm
>Nikkor. The original poster would do well do review your site, and some of these
>postings, and I think he may find several good choices.