Hi Dawid and all. Sorry for being so late to reply, I've been very busy at
work!
From: Dawid Loubser <dawid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Is anybody aware of any technical comparison between the legendary
>Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS to any of the OM Zuiko 28mm lenses?
I haven't tried this particular version (AI-S, very close focus) so I'm
afraid I'm not qualified... but all the other Nikkor 28mm lenses I had
(pre-AI 28/3.5, AI 28/2.8, AIS 28/2, Series-E 28/2.8 and AF 28/2.8n) were
nothing special, IMHO. Eventually I sold all of them and kept a
surprisingly compact, Komine-made Vivitar 28mm f/2 (_not_ the old Kiron
design) which also focuses very close. It's performance is very nice!
About the Zuiko lenses in this focal, in my experience the best is the old
28/3.5! There is some sample variation indeed (I tried five units) but the
worst ones are as good as the best Z.28/2.8 (which are no slouch, BTW)
while the best ones are quite close to the performance of the Yashica ML
28/2.8 -- the *best* slowish 28mm for SLRs IMHO, definitely better than the
Contax/Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 (in the same mount)
More on f/2s later...
>This is such a late design (1980s) and the Nikkor designers really went
>to town with it, 8 elements in 8 groups with floating element.
The floating element is expected for such a close focusing lens, most of
the Zuiko fast wides have it too. Interestingly, the Zuiko 3.5 has 7
elements, while the later (and faster) 2.8 has only six. With the oldest
Nikkors is the opposite: 6 el. the 3.5, 7 el. the 2.8. After the famous
AI-S, they went down to just 5 (!) for the Series-E, AF and AFn, while the
AF-D went back to six.
The aforementioned Yashica ML seems to have 7 elements in 6 groups (mine
does) although some leaflets indicate 8-7 -- probably an older version.
>I picked up a mint one for my Nikon F at a local shop for next to
>nothing, so I just had to try this legend out.
Well, that's near Fang territory ;-) and if you're happy with the results,
what's not to like? Congratulations!
>Small but not tiny, handles about the same as a Zuiko 24mm f/2.0 but
>with a 52mm filter.
While Olympus did set the trend for smaller photo gear, some Nikon lenses
are surprisingly compact and lightweight. Most 28/2.8s are reasonably
sized, no matter the brand, but the old ('74-'77) Nikkor 20 mm F4 is barely
bigger than "our" Zuiko 21/3.5 <
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/8172258873/lightbox/> and indeed a
somewhat better performer -- with no less than 10 elements in 8 groups!.
The later 20/3.5, with one element more, performed way worse -- at least
the samples I tried.
>Much smoother focusing of course (something the MF
>nikkors really excel at
Having tried 'a few' lenses of both brands, I second that ;-)
>I can always "feel" when
>the floating element of a wide and fast Zuiko engages, not so with this
>lens, I can focus it with my pinkie.
That's odd... AFAIK, the floating element is simply stationary while the
rest of elements move back and forth upon focusing. Maybe you're feeling
some play in the helicoid?
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>I am somewhat familiar with that Nikkor. It's a fantastic lens, but I
>recall seeing pictures from it where that wide-angle distortion thing
>kicks in in the corners when shot wide open.
But if I understand it correctly, wide-angle "distortion" is just a
perspective effect from the focal length -- or more appropriately, subject
distance. Or do you mean just the usual off-axis optical aberrations,
worsened by the wider FOV?
>I used to have a Zuiko 28/3.5. Replaced it with the 24/2.8.
Ah, that makes sense: the Zuiko 24/2.8 is an amazing performer! I'd say
even better than the f/2 version...
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>First, read this example of sample variation in that lens.
><http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_2.html>
Thanks for the link, sample variation is definitely a thing to have in mind.
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>but in my opinion, the Zuiko 28/2 is one of the finest lenses ever made.
I have mixed feelings about it... a mint sample was my second purchase at
'the auction site' and the very first item to arrive! After years of
disappointment with the Zuiko 35/2 :-( I was at first gladly impressed by
it, and it made a great fast standard lens for my first DSLR (EOS-300D)...
but somehow it saw less and less use. It was eventually replaced by a
heavily battered silvernose sample, but this one got the focus ring stuck
:-(
About its optical performance, I made a comparative test many, many moons
ago... actually a 'star test' intended for astrophotograph, which may not
accurately reveal the actual performance in regular use, but it's a severe
aberration measure anyway. The test crops are at <
http://cjss.sytes.net/atachaos/startest/>
The filenames give a clue of the lens type and then the aperture used. Thus
we have:
AI-S Nikkor 35/1.4 (ais3514_xx)
AI-S Nikkor 50/1.4 (ais5014_xx)
Zeiss Distagon 28/2 (d282_xx)
Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 (d3514_xx)
Hoya HMC 24/2.8 (hmc24_xx)
Zuiko 50/1.8 miJ (mij5018_xx)
Yashica ML 50/1.4 (ml5014_xx)
Yashica ML 50/1.7 (ml5017n_xx)
Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 AE (p5014_xx)
Vivitar (by Komine) 28/2.8 (v2828_xx)
Vivitar (by Cosina) 24/2.8 (vc2428_xx)
Yashica ML 28/2.8 (y2828_xx)
Zuiko MC 24/2.8 (z2428_xx and z2428b_xx, test repeated the following day
with other lenses)
Zuiko MC 28/2 (z2820_xx)
G.Zuiko 28/3.5, late unit (z2835_xx)
Zuiko 50/1.4, late unit (z5014_xx)
G.Zuiko 50/1.4 silvernose (z5014s_xx)
The 'fov-' files depict the whole field (downsized) as captured by the
300D, with the selected crop marked on them.
Not sure where to find them, but I did a similar test of the AI-S Nikkor
28/2 against the equivalent Zuiko... while the Nikon had a somewhat
'tighter' aberration plot wide open, the Zuiko became much better at 2.8
and especially f/4 and beyond -- its results at these apertures are very
good indeed, although it shows a hint of lateral colour.
Results from the Distagon 28/2 are certainly much better, but that lens
(designed together with Pentax, I believe) looks *huge* in comparison with
the other two! Ditto for the 35/1.4 category, the Zeiss being even larger
than the 28/2... or the 85/1.4.
>I used it extensively for copy work, because it had zero distortion at
close distances.
I remember using it for the same task!
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>In my limited experience with it, I would say that it's definitely at
>the top of the Zuiko heap.
...or the 24/2 (although the smaller 2.8 brother looks better to me, except
at 2.8 and of course f/2). And the 18/3.5, and the 90/2...
>I would suggest, however, that for normal working distances, I'm quite
>fond of the lowly 35/shift.
Aha! As "heretic" as it may sound, and having tried several samples of
each, I'm not really satisfied by _any_ 35mm Zuiko :-( But the *shift*
model is actually a scaled version of the 24/2.8 optical layout, and it
seems to share most of its imaging finesse...
...and the amazing 24/3.5 Shift is really a "larger-format version of the
18/3.5" with the extra element of the built-in filters, but don't tell
anybody :-) In other words, both shift lenses are based on some of the best
Zuiko optical layouts, so they should perform admirably.
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|