On 30 Oct 2002 01:15:17 -0800, brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote:

>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote in message news:
<3dbed4b4.19447405@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> On 29 Oct 2002 09:58:44 -0800, brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I agree with the above... While you
>> may have had a poor sample, the 28mm f3.5 PC Nikkors
>> I've seen were excellent unshifted at f3.5. BTW, I once
>> compared Nikkor 28mm f1.4, 28mm f2.8 (AIS, the good
>> one...), 28mm f4 PC (the earlier one...), and the 28mm-
>> 70mm f3.5-4.5 zoom at 28mm and all at f5.6, of a
>> landscape shot against the sun. I would have guessed
>> that the f2.8 would have produced the best image, with
>> the f1.4 just behind it, with the PC 3rd (and likely to
>> show loss of blacks due to camera internal reflections
>> from the large image circle), and with the zoom last...
>> I would have been wrong. The PC and zoom looked the
>> best in the slides, with the 2.8 a bit behind, and the
>> f1.4 last by a further bit (focus was careful...).
>> BTW, a few view camera lenses perform very well on
>> 35mm - a old Kodak 203mm f7.7 that will cover 5"x7"
>> is an example (it was used on a view camera with a
>> 35mm back on it in a hospital I worked in - results
>> were very crisp). You cannot make predictions about
>> all lenses from theory, though in general, you
>> sometimes can make them about some...;-)

>Hi David:
>My 28mm f/3.5 PC shows substantially more color fringing than my 28mm
>f/2. When I correct this aberration using Panorama Tools I have to
>use nearly twice as much correction in the former case. Here are some
>links to some actual test images when these lenses are used on a D1x:
>http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/cc028mm35PCNS.html
>http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/cc028mm20.html I've gotten
>similar results when using color slide film. This is for unshifted
>use.

This is interesting material - thanks! (And, I like your
method of showing the differences with the alternating
images!) It may be that aberrations that go un-noted in
most general chemical-photography are painfully evident
as one sees the image magnified on a computer screen,
though I don't remember this much of a problem in the
28mm f3.5 PC (but samples of these do vary noticeably
in other respects [I rate the 28mm f3.5 PCs as 4 to 4.4
{3 samples}, and the 28mm f4 PC as 4.6 {3 samples},
at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html, with a note
that the f4 performs better off-axis than the f3.5,
but the f3.5 performs better unshifted wide open...]).
You may prefer another sample of the f3.5, or an f4
sample...

>I've never used any of the lenses you mention (28/2.8, 28/4.0, 28/1.4,
>28-70/3.5-3.5), but I do use the 17-35/2.8, and interestingly this
>zoom is far better than either of my 28mm primes:
>http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/cc01735at28.html

I've heard that for digital camera use, the 17-35
is quite good - and I found it about equals good
non-zooms in its range of FLs (see
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm).

>Unfortunately, when you shift the PC lens the radial symmetry of the
>fringing pattern is lost, so it becomes much more difficult to
>correct. Ideally you'd have to keep track of the exact amount of lens
>shift, which I almost never do.
>
>Brian
>www.caldwellphotographic.com

That would be awkward...;-)
Thanks for the response and the info.