In article <31F7AAE4.3AD@aol.com>, DGalensky@aol.com says...
>Bob Neuman wrote:
>> In article <31F69DD3.67C@aol.com>, DGalensky@aol.com says...

>> >...........................there aren't many decent
>> >nikon 28mm lenses in general, and the AF in particular
>> >borrows from the somewhat simplistic E series design.

>> Ah, how many lenses do you want to choose from? ;-)
>> (The above is refering to AF lenses, I trust! :-)
>> In MF Nikkor 28mm's, the 28mm f3.5 AI/AIS; 28mm f2.8 AIS;
>> 28mm f2 non-AI, AI, AIS; 28mm f4 PC; 28mm f3.5 PC; 25-50mm
>> f4; 28-50mm f3.5; and 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 are all very good
>> to excellent lenses.

>so of the above, for the range of fixed 28mm lenses
>(which was the genesis of the thread as i recall)
>perhaps the f/2 and the PC lenses would be the
>better ones, i'd assume ($!). the manual focus f/2.8
>was probably the last, decent, affordable design.
>(it does have CRC, doesn't it? i have to catch
>myself to keep from referring to it in the past tense,
>as nikon would have us consider it. it is still
>available, no? i'm thinking it might not be a bad
>idea to pick one up before nikon cuts the cord
>on 'em.)

The Nikkor 28mm f2.8 (AIS only!!), 28mm f3.5 (AI and AIS only),
28mm f4 PC, and 28mm f2 (all versions) are my favorites for
highest quality optics. The PC and f3.5 do not have CRC, but
the other two do. I would grab the wonderful f2.8 AIS now, if
you have any intention of owning this gem (it, and the f3.5,
are good even wide-open - VERY uncommon!).

>> In AF Nikkor 28mm's, the 28-85mm f3.5-4.5; the 28-70mm
>> f3.3-4.5; probably the 28mm f1.4; probably the 24-50mm
>> f3.3-4.5; and, MAYBE, the D version of the 28mm f2.8 are
>> all at least good performers.

I forgot the 20-35mm f2.8, which also qualifies as a good 28mm.

>i'd like to know more about the f/1.4 lens...somehow
>i got the idea that it wasn't stellar (considering
>the price.) it could well be that quality improvements
>are traded off against getting that wiiiide aperture.
>the D version of the f/2.8 is the same as the
>non-D as i understand it (i.e., not so hot.) i doubt
>i'd pay over $1K for a 28mm lens just to get a decent
>comtemporary AF-ing 28. again, the f/2.8 AIs seems the
>coolest choice from strictly a quality per dollar
>perspective (ignoring the limitations of metering and
>exposure modes on N series bodies.)

I agree with your conclusions (though the AI/AIS f3.5,
used, is a steal in terms of price/quality). Nikon
apparently has changed the optics of the AF f2.8 D - one
more element and CRC added - I have not tried it, though.

>(and on the topic of zooms spanning 28mm: when oh when
>will nikon finally upgrade their 28-85 to a D design?
>and the 75-300 and/or 300/4 for that matter! we're
>waiting out here, nikon...are you listening?)

I prefer the 28-85 to the 28-70, so if I cared about
the "D" feature, I would be asking the same question.

>my point was just that for all the 28mm lenses that
>nikon made, they seem overall to be their weakest
>link. they still might be the best in the industry,
>i dunno. but personally i've done well without them,
>and will probably continue to avoid them unless
>there's some hitherto undiscovered application that
>their outstanding 24mm can't handle.

Hmmm, I can't agree with this last conclusion, unless
it applies to AF only (there are so MANY gull-durn good
28mm Nikkors to choose from! ;-). And the 24mm can't shift,
if you need that feature. I consider four of the MF 28mm
Nikkors to be equal or superior to the 24mm f2.8 or f2
Nikkors in optical quality (heck, the 20mm f2.8 is better,
also - though the 24mm is a very fine lens).
Hope This Helps