On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:42:42 -0500, "Bob Fowler"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3e00e451.2464882@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>> ?????????
>> 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 ...
>You missed my point, there was more than one version of the pre-AI and AIS
>28mm f/3.5. The test data doesn't specify WHICH version was tested. The
>charts doesn't show ANY 28mm f/2.8 AI lens data, only "earlier" which I
>would read as pre-AI as there isn't a specific pre-AI category for the
>f/2.8.
There were only two Nikkor 28mm f3.5 versions: the
(roughly) non-AI, and the (roughly) AI/AIS versions...
These are covered. The 28mm f2.8 MF versions also came
in only two "optical types" (the list does not differentiate
"barrel types", as pointed out in the text...): the AI
(and pre-AI...), and the AIS... These are also covered.
>> >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...
>I've had lenses that were dropped that didn't show any outward signs of
>abuse, but were never the same again.
Yes - I was referring to wear... Though it is very unlikely
that there was *no* sign of the dropping - one usually sees
subtle deformation of the focus ring, filter ring, or a
flatttening at the rear edge of the aperture ring after a
drop...
>I stand by my statement "The older 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor H C (pre-ai) is a good
>lens" (note that I specified WHICH version of the f/3.5 lens I was talking
>about) just as much as I stand by my statement "The 28mm f/2.8 AIS is THE
>Nikkor 28 to have - if you're only having one." I'm not saying the 3.5 is
>"great" or "fabulous", not by a long shot, the 2.8 AIS is clearly superior.
>The Nikkor H C IS an affordable and very usable lens for day to day
>shooting. Remember what the original poster said "Oh yes, and I cannot spend
>$$$$ :-Q" An AI converted Nikkor H C shouldn't cost more than $70 or so,
>less than $50 unconverted (there are still conversion kits available from
>many sources).
Well, OK - and I will say that the early 28mm f3.5 was
one of Nikon's lesser lenses (and I am VERY familiar with
several samples, both new and used...). If your standards
are that low, fine... (I suspect that you would therefore
like the 28mm f2.8 E/AF and 28mm f2.8 AI versions, also,
but they, too, are among Nikon's worst lens efforts ;-).
I used a 28mm f3.5 Nikkor for years (the better of two
new ones), since there were no alternatives, but it was
a constant struggle to make the corners acceptable (a red
filter and f16 can just about do it...;-) BTW, there is a
photo taken with it, at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht3.html, first photo...