Thanks for your 28mm lens comparison video. Over the decades, I have used 28mm lenses primarily for scenics, landscapes, architecture, large group portraits, environmental portraits, and vacation/travel. I used them on full-frame 35mm Nikon, Contax, Pentax, and Fuji film bodies. Here are the 28mm lenses I have used: Asahi 28mm f/3.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (produced high quality images) Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS (52mm filter) (produced high quality images) Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 pre-AIS (52mm filter) (used with reversal ring and bellows to produce high reproduction ratio macro images) Nikkor 28mm f/4 PC (72mm filter) (used for architectural images and panoramic scenic images) Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens with TX mount (58mm filter) (produced high quality images) Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 lens with M42 mount (67mm) Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 lens with TX mount (58mm) (produced the lowest quality images) Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T* ZF 2 (58mm filter) (use for night scenics) Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Biogon (46mm filter) (use with Contax G1 rangefinder All my 28mm lenses were purchased used. The Zeiss Distagon was the most expensive (about $600). The three Vivitars were the least expensive (each cost less than $60) One of the Vivitars produced images that were equal in quality to the Nikon, Zeiss, and Takumar lenses. One of the Vivitars produced the lowest quality images. I used the Vivitars in situations where the lens could be lost, damaged, or stolen. The Zeiss Biogon was my personal favorite 28mm lens for vacation/travel.
@@MrFordguy73 All the Nikkor lenses I listed are Nikon F-mount lenses and will mount on F-mount Nikon cameras. The two Vivitar lenses have an adapter that allows them to mount on Nikon F-mount cameras. One of my Vivitar lenses has an M42 screw-mount and will not mount on the Nikon F-mount cameras. Please be aware that there are other Vivitar lenses that have other camera mounts. My 28mm f/2 Zeiss has a ZF mount that allows it to mount on Nikon F mount cameras. Please note that Zeiss makes other lenses with different camera mounts. My 28mm Takumar is a screw-mount lens that is designed for screw-mount cameras. It was not desiged for Nikon F-mount cameras. My 28mm f/2.8 Zeiss has a Contax mount that was not designed for Nikon F-mount cameras. Hope that helps. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to address your concerns.
Glad it's a good / useful focal length for you! If you ever move to FF, there are some pretty nice "fast" 40's worth looking at. Konica's 40mm f/1.8 will be in an upcoming review, and I personally use a 40mm Voigtlander 1.4 on a rangefinder - though that one was a little more than most cheapies.
The 28mm 3.5 Nikkor compared here is from an early version of the lens. This lens was optically improved several times over its life, which ended in 1983. The last redesign, in 1975, included a larger exit lens element, which solved any vignetting issues and made that lens insanely sharp. Although it is probably not compared here because of its high cost, the 28mm 2.0 Nikkor is even better, one of the best lenses in the Nikon lineup.
Great to know! Yes, the version I used is from the 60’s and personally, I think it performs great for like 1/4 the price of its older sibling! That f/2 is definitely on my list if I ever come across a good price, you never know ;)
What a nice presentation! Im impressed and also this is exactly how I do my comparisons and you saved me a lot of work here. The Albinar looks so soft in the initial test I would suppose it has a bit of haze or really ineffective coatings.
A 28mm prime that has seriously impressed me is the Sigma 28mm f1.8 lens. I have the AF version on my camera now (Sigma 28mm f1.8 II Aspherical) having just found it again after believing it was lost for a long time. When I was shooting with Nikon film cameras I owned the manual focus version of the lens and got some great shots with it. The fast maximum aperture which is very sharp and ability to focus down to about one ft/30 cm in combination with the focal length made it a very versatile lens. It is certainly a lens that should be considered if one is looking for a vintage 28mm prime.
Interesting! I’ve seen this lens in AF, but never manual. Sounds like a top performer, like the Signa 24 superwide is at the 24mm level (in my other video)... I just picked up the sigma 28 mini-wide 2.8 to add to the comparisons... if I ever come across the 1.8, I’ll be sure to snatch it up, even if it’s a little pricey... thanks for the tip!
@@defismeisme it’s so timely. I just did a comparison of a sigma 2.8 compared to 5 new 28’s. Stay tuned! Preliminary I can say the sigma was a good performer.
The Nikkor 28mm F2 is my favorite lens as it is tack sharp at infinity and renders stars perfectly for astrophotography wide open. The Nikkor 35mm F1.4 turns stars into footballs wide open and needs to be closed down to F2 or F2.8. For waterfalls I prefer the wider field of the Nikkor 24mm F2.8. The Nikkor 28mm F2.8 has a reputation of being really sharp from close to medium distances. Love the vintage glass.
Personally I think Vivitar is the secret weapon of budget. Rokunar its clone and also Rokkors all of similar period. For me I find they have the best saturation and literally are "vivid" lol. Vivitar I think was considered decent in the SLR days but have somehow managed to eek into that like under $50 range. I just sold all of my FD SSC primes. I needed money and am perfectly content with my Vivitar / Rokkor/ Rokunar stuff. While you could split hairs about some aberration or certain qualities my FD's were a bit washed out compared to my 28mm vivitar. The vivitar color honestly paired on my AF-100 or FS-100 looks very filmic. It looked a lot like Arri C11 footage I've seen. I did keep my FD 35-105mm which is surprisingly cinematic for video reminds me of the Meteor lens.. I also have a Dejur 135mm breech lock for Canon and unfortunately its a little loose but very pretty glass and image on the FS-100. I went nuts on FD's and then I wanted Contax Zeiss to be like "Kubrick" but you may find other qualities even if someone can split hairs. If it's about budget I would have no qualms about shooting a film on a set of Vivitars against FD's. My main channel has a top 5 video for it's search query on google and it's just a Vivitar lens on an AF-100 with a good built in ND filter. I get compliments quite a bit like people blown away like "what a camera" type comments or asking me what it is. So there is definitely a golden pocket of avoiding popular vintage like FD SSC ( which are great, don't get me wrong ) but anyone who is not an optics professional will be hard pressed to spot it. The only lenses I can kind of really start to see are my Chinese 7 Artisans which I got for being extremely fast and light for night stuff... I figured why not... and I still didn't dismiss them. This video definitely shows some stark contrast between some brands but I don't even play with those. I do have one zoom Albinar which is MEH... my 28mm vivitar blows it out of the water... So there is that particular era I think between 70s and 80s of metal bodied lenses that typically have the optical peak of film photography in my opinion. I know my FS-100 is a bit dated... things out there have more latitude and im sure with that in mind it'd be stunning.. and it already is.
Out of the many many classic 28mm lensed I've used so far, the best one is the SMC Pentax 28mm f/3.5 (non-M version). The Nikkor ai-s 28/2.8 is a killer lens but the Pentax is even better, also at close up range.
That Pentax sure is smooth. Check out my other video of my FAVORITE vintage 28's where both of those two lenses are tested head to head! ruclips.net/video/6-5V6ArSRXw/видео.html
You may have wanted to include a lens or two for these comparisons... The Vivitar 28mm f2.5. lens, would be a good example for comparison. Back in the 80's I was an Advertising Photographer that did Full Page Ads for all of the best Magazines of that time. (no internet yet) Everything from Food to Cars to High Fashion, and was paid very well. For my 35mm work, I useda "Nikon" F3 HP with it's amazing motor drive as one of my favorite cameras... Besides, you couldn't show up with an Olympus or Pentax, and have anyone think you were worth your salt kind of thing. I had that Nikkor 28mm f2.8, and thought it was fantastic... until I tried out the Vivitar 28 f2.5. Personally, I liked it much more than the Nikkor lens. To look at it, you might think it was a "Fisheye", as it has such a Huge and Bulb like front element... With 67mm filter size, which mounts to a "V" shape Metal Flange that could be taken for a Lens Hood by someone who had never seen this lens before, and the Filter when used does not Vignette. I knew it could Focus Close, but wasn't sure how close, so I dug through my large assortment of Camera Bags that are now filled with Vintage Lenses, to find this lens and test it, on a Sony A7rIII ... I did not get out a Tape Measure, but it looks like it will focus about 5 to 6 inches, from the front of the Lens. Very Sharp, even Wide Open. Corners are Sharp and No Vignette at f2.5. My personal copy of this lens is Mint. Looks like it was made yesterday. It came with a Metal "slip on" lens cap, that people now see from the likes of 7Artisans or TTartisans lenses. Though theirs are not as well made. Vivitar's is Precision made, "Vacuum" is what holds it on. Shake it around, it doesn't fall off. It also came in a Real Leather, Velvet Lined Hard Case, w/ carry strap. Also included a 14 page Full Color Printed Manual, and an additional Color Brochure of other Vivitar Lenses. (printing is expensive, especially in Color Gloss) What did you get with the Nikkor lens? ... A Cardboard Box, lens in a Plastic Bag, a folded sheet of paper with tiny print and a Plastic Lens Cap. I have not done a Side by Side comparison like you have with these lenses, but I think you would find it to be As good, or possibly Better than the Nikkor f2.8. One thing I do know is I like using it better than the Nikkor... but, if you are looking for a "Small and Light" lens to put into your Backpack... It's not this Vivitar. This Vivitar makes a Dwarf of the Nikkor, which could easily Hide behind it... and it is Much Heavier too. I am not talking about the version that came much earlier in M42 Screw Mount. That was a Much Heavier Lens. All of those Old Screw Mont lenses are. People must have been Stronger in the 1950's. lol Everything back then, a Toaster or a Car, or a Camera / Lens to a Washing Machine... Built like a Tank. The best version of this lens was made for Nikon AI, Canon, Olympus, Minolta and Pentax mounts. They may have also made it in Yashica / Contax mounts, but I'm not sure. Back in the 80's when this lens was made, there were tons of lens makers who were all there to offer a "Cheaper" alternative to the Name Brand Nikon or Canon lenses... Much like today. A good lens for less money than the Great Lens for Big Money. Nobody tried to make "Better Lenses" than the "Name Brand" lenses, aside from "Vivitar"... I am not talking about Every Vivitar lens they made, but certain lenses they made, especially with their "Series 1" line of lenses. This lens predates the "Series 1" line, but would have been included if they had thought up that name sooner. Vivitar's Goal was not to just make a Cheap replacement for a "Nikkor" lens... but to make a Lens that Surpassed the Best Lens of that Focal length out there. With this lens, and a handful of others, I feel they Succeed. All "Tamron" lenses with the "Adapt-All Mount" were pretty crappy lenses for the most part. This was done to save Tamron Money, but they made it look like they did it for the Ease of the Consumer. The only Good Lenses from Tamron, were the ATX versions, with an Actual Mount for each Brand of Camera. They also cost a lot more than the "Adapt-All" type. On another and Humorous note... I Was wondering why you Pronounce "Soligor" like "Albinar" or like "Cigar" ... it does not have an "ar" at the end, it has an "or" at the end of the word. The same way that "Nikkor" has an "or". You don't pronounce "Nikkor" like "Nikkar". First I thought you might be from Boston, as all of those people have a real problem pronouncing any word with an "ar" in it... but no problem with "or" ... I've Never heard "Soligor" pronounced that way. Very strange... lol
Your comparisons are GREAT! Detailed and kind, your videos are very well structured and your voice is kind and calm. So, thanks for your videos. I have a pair of questions 1) Why the Nikkor vintage lenses are pricier than others? In fb marketplace the Nikkor lenses are in overall pricier than FD, Minolta, Pentax, M42, etc. 2) What do you recommend for a beginner photo hobbyist that want to collect vintage manual lenses? Is it better to stick with one mount or two? Or is it better to buy anything that is a good bargain? What are the systems with better lenses?
Thank you so much for the kind words. I hope in time I'll be able to get to some great comparisons (have lots of lenses to talk about) and the encouragement is so appreciated. Question 1 - I'll say this - I collect Nikon lenses primarily. As a line, and if you're going to shoot all Nikon and want a similar look across focal lengths they're great. You[ll see the 135 2.8 AI and the 28 2.8 AIS blow away all competition in some of my videos. But in many instances, there are other lenses. So the long answer to your question: Nikkors are almost always good, and if you just need to choose, you can't go wrong with Nikon. Question 2 - When I was a beginner, I went with one mount (Pentax k) - but eventually bought everything. Benefits of getting one type of lens mount- fewer adapters. But honestly, my recommendation is to get some good prime lenses cheap (Thrift Store, Flea Market, Yard Sale). Then buy adapters on eBay for cheap and go to town. I hope the videos show you can take great pictures with almost any lenses and the hobby is lots of fun without being super costly! Enjoy!!
I have had very mixed results with older 28mm lenses. One of my favorites is a cheap Minolta Celtic 28/3.5. One of the worst was a Pentax SMC-M 28/2.8. Unfortunately, I brought it on vacation years ago before testing it, what a disaster when I got my film back.
I’ve used that Pentax, on vacation in Maine actually. Agree it was disappointing compared to other Pentax-M lenses I’ve used. My next test will include the Pentax 28 f/3.5, which is purported to be the superior option! Subscribe for notification when posted! Thanks for watching!!
I had the Nikkor 28mm 2.8, I remeber it was very expensive in 1981 and I was VERY dissapointed with that lens, I quickly swapped it for a Nikkor 35mm 2.0 which are great. The Tokina 28mm 2.8 that I had at that time was just as good, maybe better than the Nikkor 28mm 2.8, the Tokina was four to five times cheaper than the Nikkor ! The Tamron 28mm 2.5 I remember as OK if it was stopped down. Very good 28mm´s are fx Canon FDn 28mm 2.0, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28mm 2.0 and Leica Elmarit-R 28mm 2.8.
I have the Nikkor-H. Articles about it suggest F11 is where it’s at. I also have the Olympus OM G.Zuiko 28mm F3.5 that I got last year for under $5. That’s actually my go-to 28 kit. So small and flat field for outstanding landscape shots.
The size of the Zuiko lenses is really something. I keep the 24 2.8 and 21 f/4 even though I have some lenses that are technically slightly superior... they are awesome size to performance ratio...
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 I always keep an eye out for a cheap Zuiko lens. This 28mm is the only one I have right now. I also have the Yashica ML 28mm 3.5, but prefer the Zuiko. Your video prompted me to pull out my Nikkor-H just now. I need to use it more and see how it compares to the Olympus. Cheers!
I have several 28's....Pentax Tak 3.5 ( first version 58mm filter ), Tak 3.5, Tamron 2.5, Pentax M 2.8, Olympus 2.8, Canon FD 2.8, and a Tokina (FD) 2.8. The Tak first version whilst the softest certainly has character especially if you like funky soap bubble bokeh. Maybe it's my copy but the Tamron doesn't do anything for me. The Tak 3.5, M 2.8 are good, the FD 2.8 and Tokina 2.8 are very similar in sharpness and contrast. And they are sharp. The OM 2.8 is almost as sharp and contrasty as the Canon and Tokina but has nicer saturation. My overall favourite would be the OM 2.8 Just my observations. Oh...all lenses adapted to a Panasonic GX7.
i have a problem with 28mm m42 lens on Canon 5D its Auto Beroflex 28mm F2.8 , it cant focus past 3meters , also after 50mm next most common lens is 35mm , 28mm is a bit on a wide side . I dont know , even today , classic is 50mm , after that 35mm. Wider then that are available but considered specialized .
As a camera junkie who currently owns the Pentax-M 28mm f2.0, Pentax-M 28mm f2.8, SMC Takumar 28mm f3.5, Konica 28mm f3.5... I'd go with the Konica. No joke, I have owned 12 or 15 28mm to 40mm lenses in the last 4 years from Nikon, Pentax, etc. (even that Soligor!? hahahaha); unequivocally the last version of the Konica Hexanon 28mm 3.5 is absurdly amazing. The later model Konica glass is in a class of it's own. The earlier version I was less impressed with, but OMFG the sharpness and contrast is substantially better on that last version. Not sure why Konica is so cheap...
My favorite 50 is a Konica 57 F/1.4, and it’s on my radar. If I can ever pick a Konica 28 up for cheap(ish) I’m all over it. I love Pentax, and have owned several 28-M 2.8’s and they were just okay for me. I sold a Super Tak 3.5, and kind wished I tried it out some more ... Minolta, Canon... none were up there with the Nikkor. Thanks for viewing!
Could you please give me an advice, what would you choose for landscapes - Vivitar (Komine) 28mm f/2 MC Close Focus or Minolta MC W.ROKKOR-SG 28mm f/3.5? I'm taking photos whith a Minolta srt-101.
Personally I would go with the Minolta. It should be less expensive and the Vivitar really never gets super sharp even when stopped down to typical landscape apertures. Thanks for watching!!
I had the Tamron 28mm 2.5, it was fairly good, but I would not pick that Lens, the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 are very disappointing. The Tokina 28mm 2.8 was better than the Nikkor 28mm 2.8.
Hmm not sure perhaps others will know. My guess would be it’s the same as Vivitar 28 2.5’s and I haven’t seen those as being radioactive but always a good idea to use a Geiger counter …
Thanks for your 28mm lens comparison video.
Over the decades, I have used 28mm lenses primarily for scenics, landscapes, architecture, large group portraits, environmental portraits, and vacation/travel. I used them on full-frame 35mm Nikon, Contax, Pentax, and Fuji film bodies.
Here are the 28mm lenses I have used:
Asahi 28mm f/3.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (produced high quality images)
Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS (52mm filter) (produced high quality images)
Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 pre-AIS (52mm filter) (used with reversal ring and bellows to produce high reproduction ratio macro images)
Nikkor 28mm f/4 PC (72mm filter) (used for architectural images and panoramic scenic images)
Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 lens with TX mount (58mm filter) (produced high quality images)
Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 lens with M42 mount (67mm)
Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 lens with TX mount (58mm) (produced the lowest quality images)
Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T* ZF 2 (58mm filter) (use for night scenics)
Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Biogon (46mm filter) (use with Contax G1 rangefinder
All my 28mm lenses were purchased used.
The Zeiss Distagon was the most expensive (about $600).
The three Vivitars were the least expensive (each cost less than $60)
One of the Vivitars produced images that were equal in quality to the Nikon, Zeiss, and Takumar lenses.
One of the Vivitars produced the lowest quality images.
I used the Vivitars in situations where the lens could be lost, damaged, or stolen.
The Zeiss Biogon was my personal favorite 28mm lens for vacation/travel.
Pardon my ignorance, but will these all fit on a Nikon f mount? I don't want to purchase one and it not fit. Don't roast me, I honestly don't know
@@MrFordguy73
All the Nikkor lenses I listed are Nikon F-mount lenses and will mount on F-mount Nikon cameras.
The two Vivitar lenses have an adapter that allows them to mount on Nikon F-mount cameras. One of my Vivitar lenses has an M42 screw-mount and will not mount on the Nikon F-mount cameras. Please be aware that there are other Vivitar lenses that have other camera mounts.
My 28mm f/2 Zeiss has a ZF mount that allows it to mount on Nikon F mount cameras. Please note that Zeiss makes other lenses with different camera mounts.
My 28mm Takumar is a screw-mount lens that is designed for screw-mount cameras. It was not desiged for Nikon F-mount cameras.
My 28mm f/2.8 Zeiss has a Contax mount that was not designed for Nikon F-mount cameras.
Hope that helps. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to address your concerns.
28mm on a crop censor (42 on 35mm) is absolutely my favorite focal length, with a fast 28 on crop or 40mm on FF, i'd never need another lens
Glad it's a good / useful focal length for you! If you ever move to FF, there are some pretty nice "fast" 40's worth looking at. Konica's 40mm f/1.8 will be in an upcoming review, and I personally use a 40mm Voigtlander 1.4 on a rangefinder - though that one was a little more than most cheapies.
The 28mm 3.5 Nikkor compared here is from an early version of the lens. This lens was optically improved several times over its life, which ended in 1983. The last redesign, in 1975, included a larger exit lens element, which solved any vignetting issues and made that lens insanely sharp. Although it is probably not compared here because of its high cost, the 28mm 2.0 Nikkor is even better, one of the best lenses in the Nikon lineup.
Great to know! Yes, the version I used is from the 60’s and personally, I think it performs great for like 1/4 the price of its older sibling! That f/2 is definitely on my list if I ever come across a good price, you never know ;)
I have the Nikkor 28mm f/2 I can say it’s a very sharp lens I’ve even compared it to my Sony 35mm f/1.4 gm and it holds up well.
What a nice presentation! Im impressed and also this is exactly how I do my comparisons and you saved me a lot of work here. The Albinar looks so soft in the initial test I would suppose it has a bit of haze or really ineffective coatings.
A 28mm prime that has seriously impressed me is the Sigma 28mm f1.8 lens. I have the AF version on my camera now (Sigma 28mm f1.8 II Aspherical) having just found it again after believing it was lost for a long time. When I was shooting with Nikon film cameras I owned the manual focus version of the lens and got some great shots with it. The fast maximum aperture which is very sharp and ability to focus down to about one ft/30 cm in combination with the focal length made it a very versatile lens. It is certainly a lens that should be considered if one is looking for a vintage 28mm prime.
Interesting! I’ve seen this lens in AF, but never manual. Sounds like a top performer, like the Signa 24 superwide is at the 24mm level (in my other video)... I just picked up the sigma 28 mini-wide 2.8 to add to the comparisons... if I ever come across the 1.8, I’ll be sure to snatch it up, even if it’s a little pricey... thanks for the tip!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 May I know how would you rate the Sigma 28mm f2.8 comparing to Nikon 28mm f2.8 or maybe Nikon 28mm f3.5?
@@defismeisme it’s so timely. I just did a comparison of a sigma 2.8 compared to 5 new 28’s. Stay tuned! Preliminary I can say the sigma was a good performer.
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 Cool! Can't wait to see the new video :) Thanks for the quick response
The Nikkor 28mm F2 is my favorite lens as it is tack sharp at infinity and renders stars perfectly for astrophotography wide open. The Nikkor 35mm F1.4 turns stars into footballs wide open and needs to be closed down to F2 or F2.8. For waterfalls I prefer the wider field of the Nikkor 24mm F2.8. The Nikkor 28mm F2.8 has a reputation of being really sharp from close to medium distances. Love the vintage glass.
Personally I think Vivitar is the secret weapon of budget. Rokunar its clone and also Rokkors all of similar period. For me I find they have the best saturation and literally are "vivid" lol. Vivitar I think was considered decent in the SLR days but have somehow managed to eek into that like under $50 range. I just sold all of my FD SSC primes. I needed money and am perfectly content with my Vivitar / Rokkor/ Rokunar stuff. While you could split hairs about some aberration or certain qualities my FD's were a bit washed out compared to my 28mm vivitar. The vivitar color honestly paired on my AF-100 or FS-100 looks very filmic. It looked a lot like Arri C11 footage I've seen. I did keep my FD 35-105mm which is surprisingly cinematic for video reminds me of the Meteor lens.. I also have a Dejur 135mm breech lock for Canon and unfortunately its a little loose but very pretty glass and image on the FS-100. I went nuts on FD's and then I wanted Contax Zeiss to be like "Kubrick" but you may find other qualities even if someone can split hairs. If it's about budget I would have no qualms about shooting a film on a set of Vivitars against FD's. My main channel has a top 5 video for it's search query on google and it's just a Vivitar lens on an AF-100 with a good built in ND filter. I get compliments quite a bit like people blown away like "what a camera" type comments or asking me what it is. So there is definitely a golden pocket of avoiding popular vintage like FD SSC ( which are great, don't get me wrong ) but anyone who is not an optics professional will be hard pressed to spot it. The only lenses I can kind of really start to see are my Chinese 7 Artisans which I got for being extremely fast and light for night stuff... I figured why not... and I still didn't dismiss them. This video definitely shows some stark contrast between some brands but I don't even play with those. I do have one zoom Albinar which is MEH... my 28mm vivitar blows it out of the water... So there is that particular era I think between 70s and 80s of metal bodied lenses that typically have the optical peak of film photography in my opinion. I know my FS-100 is a bit dated... things out there have more latitude and im sure with that in mind it'd be stunning.. and it already is.
Lots of great Vivitars… I’ve taken some of my favorite photos with them… the primes and many zooms are certainly “good enough” to do the job!!
Out of the many many classic 28mm lensed I've used so far, the best one is the SMC Pentax 28mm f/3.5 (non-M version). The Nikkor ai-s 28/2.8 is a killer lens but the Pentax is even better, also at close up range.
That Pentax sure is smooth. Check out my other video of my FAVORITE vintage 28's where both of those two lenses are tested head to head! ruclips.net/video/6-5V6ArSRXw/видео.html
I agree... I bought it for my Pentax SV back in the 1960's ... Took it with me to Vietnam. Still have it. It is a Dynamite wide angle lens.
You may have wanted to include a lens or two for these comparisons... The Vivitar 28mm f2.5. lens, would be a good example for comparison.
Back in the 80's I was an Advertising Photographer that did Full Page Ads for all of the best Magazines of that time. (no internet yet)
Everything from Food to Cars to High Fashion, and was paid very well. For my 35mm work, I useda "Nikon" F3 HP with it's amazing motor drive as
one of my favorite cameras... Besides, you couldn't show up with an Olympus or Pentax, and have anyone think you were worth your salt kind of thing.
I had that Nikkor 28mm f2.8, and thought it was fantastic... until I tried out the Vivitar 28 f2.5. Personally, I liked it much more than the Nikkor lens.
To look at it, you might think it was a "Fisheye", as it has such a Huge and Bulb like front element... With 67mm filter size, which mounts to a "V" shape
Metal Flange that could be taken for a Lens Hood by someone who had never seen this lens before, and the Filter when used does not Vignette.
I knew it could Focus Close, but wasn't sure how close, so I dug through my large assortment of Camera Bags that are now filled with Vintage Lenses,
to find this lens and test it, on a Sony A7rIII ... I did not get out a Tape Measure, but it looks like it will focus about 5 to 6 inches, from the front of the Lens.
Very Sharp, even Wide Open. Corners are Sharp and No Vignette at f2.5. My personal copy of this lens is Mint. Looks like it was made yesterday.
It came with a Metal "slip on" lens cap, that people now see from the likes of 7Artisans or TTartisans lenses. Though theirs are not as well made.
Vivitar's is Precision made, "Vacuum" is what holds it on. Shake it around, it doesn't fall off. It also came in a Real Leather, Velvet Lined Hard Case, w/ carry strap.
Also included a 14 page Full Color Printed Manual, and an additional Color Brochure of other Vivitar Lenses. (printing is expensive, especially in Color Gloss)
What did you get with the Nikkor lens? ... A Cardboard Box, lens in a Plastic Bag, a folded sheet of paper with tiny print and a Plastic Lens Cap.
I have not done a Side by Side comparison like you have with these lenses, but I think you would find it to be As good, or possibly Better than the Nikkor f2.8.
One thing I do know is I like using it better than the Nikkor... but, if you are looking for a "Small and Light" lens to put into your Backpack... It's not this Vivitar.
This Vivitar makes a Dwarf of the Nikkor, which could easily Hide behind it... and it is Much Heavier too.
I am not talking about the version that came much earlier in M42 Screw Mount. That was a Much Heavier Lens. All of those Old Screw Mont lenses are.
People must have been Stronger in the 1950's. lol Everything back then, a Toaster or a Car, or a Camera / Lens to a Washing Machine... Built like a Tank.
The best version of this lens was made for Nikon AI, Canon, Olympus, Minolta and Pentax mounts.
They may have also made it in Yashica / Contax mounts, but I'm not sure.
Back in the 80's when this lens was made, there were tons of lens makers who were all there to offer a "Cheaper" alternative to the Name Brand Nikon or Canon
lenses... Much like today. A good lens for less money than the Great Lens for Big Money. Nobody tried to make "Better Lenses" than the "Name Brand" lenses,
aside from "Vivitar"... I am not talking about Every Vivitar lens they made, but certain lenses they made, especially with their "Series 1" line of lenses.
This lens predates the "Series 1" line, but would have been included if they had thought up that name sooner.
Vivitar's Goal was not to just make a Cheap replacement for a "Nikkor" lens... but to make a Lens that Surpassed the Best Lens of that Focal length out there.
With this lens, and a handful of others, I feel they Succeed.
All "Tamron" lenses with the "Adapt-All Mount" were pretty crappy lenses for the most part. This was done to save Tamron Money, but they made it look
like they did it for the Ease of the Consumer. The only Good Lenses from Tamron, were the ATX versions, with an Actual Mount for each Brand of Camera.
They also cost a lot more than the "Adapt-All" type.
On another and Humorous note...
I Was wondering why you Pronounce "Soligor" like "Albinar" or like "Cigar" ... it does not have an "ar" at the end, it has an "or" at the end of the word.
The same way that "Nikkor" has an "or". You don't pronounce "Nikkor" like "Nikkar". First I thought you might be from Boston, as all of those people
have a real problem pronouncing any word with an "ar" in it... but no problem with "or" ... I've Never heard "Soligor" pronounced that way. Very strange... lol
Your comparisons are GREAT! Detailed and kind, your videos are very well structured and your voice is kind and calm. So, thanks for your videos.
I have a pair of questions
1) Why the Nikkor vintage lenses are pricier than others? In fb marketplace the Nikkor lenses are in overall pricier than FD, Minolta, Pentax, M42, etc.
2) What do you recommend for a beginner photo hobbyist that want to collect vintage manual lenses? Is it better to stick with one mount or two? Or is it better to buy anything that is a good bargain? What are the systems with better lenses?
Thank you so much for the kind words. I hope in time I'll be able to get to some great comparisons (have lots of lenses to talk about) and the encouragement is so appreciated.
Question 1 - I'll say this - I collect Nikon lenses primarily. As a line, and if you're going to shoot all Nikon and want a similar look across focal lengths they're great. You[ll see the 135 2.8 AI and the 28 2.8 AIS blow away all competition in some of my videos. But in many instances, there are other lenses. So the long answer to your question: Nikkors are almost always good, and if you just need to choose, you can't go wrong with Nikon.
Question 2 - When I was a beginner, I went with one mount (Pentax k) - but eventually bought everything. Benefits of getting one type of lens mount- fewer adapters. But honestly, my recommendation is to get some good prime lenses cheap (Thrift Store, Flea Market, Yard Sale). Then buy adapters on eBay for cheap and go to town.
I hope the videos show you can take great pictures with almost any lenses and the hobby is lots of fun without being super costly! Enjoy!!
I told you I could find it! :) This is really great. I’m truly impressed!
You don’t even own a basement!
I have had very mixed results with older 28mm lenses. One of my favorites is a cheap Minolta Celtic 28/3.5. One of the worst was a Pentax SMC-M 28/2.8. Unfortunately, I brought it on vacation years ago before testing it, what a disaster when I got my film back.
I’ve used that Pentax, on vacation in Maine actually. Agree it was disappointing compared to other Pentax-M lenses I’ve used. My next test will include the Pentax 28 f/3.5, which is purported to be the superior option! Subscribe for notification when posted! Thanks for watching!!
I had the Nikkor 28mm 2.8, I remeber it was very expensive in 1981 and I was VERY dissapointed with that lens, I quickly swapped it for a Nikkor 35mm 2.0 which are great. The Tokina 28mm 2.8 that I had at that time was just as good, maybe better than the Nikkor 28mm 2.8, the Tokina was four to five times cheaper than the Nikkor ! The Tamron 28mm 2.5 I remember as OK if it was stopped down. Very good 28mm´s are fx Canon FDn 28mm 2.0, Contax Zeiss Distagon 28mm 2.0 and Leica Elmarit-R 28mm 2.8.
Yes Tokina, Canon, Leica and Contax are good to very good Lenses.
For the Soligor, if you have a serial # that starts with 17XXXXXX then it's a Tokina. I've got a 28mm 2.8 T4 and I love it.
Thanks for the video :) Have you tried Kiron 28mm f2 ?
I haven't, though I certainly would pick one up if I came across it at a decent price!
Thanks for this great comprehensive comparison. Found it very helpful 👍
So happy to hear!
There is the Nikkor AIS, and then the rest (among these lenses). No contest.
I have the Nikkor-H. Articles about it suggest F11 is where it’s at. I also have the Olympus OM G.Zuiko 28mm F3.5 that I got last year for under $5. That’s actually my go-to 28 kit. So small and flat field for outstanding landscape shots.
The size of the Zuiko lenses is really something. I keep the 24 2.8 and 21 f/4 even though I have some lenses that are technically slightly superior... they are awesome size to performance ratio...
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 I always keep an eye out for a cheap Zuiko lens. This 28mm is the only one I have right now. I also have the Yashica ML 28mm 3.5, but prefer the Zuiko. Your video prompted me to pull out my Nikkor-H just now. I need to use it more and see how it compares to the Olympus. Cheers!
Olympus 28mm 3.5 are a great lens stopped down to 5.6 to 8.0
I have several 28's....Pentax Tak 3.5 ( first version 58mm filter ), Tak 3.5, Tamron 2.5, Pentax M 2.8, Olympus 2.8, Canon FD 2.8, and a Tokina (FD) 2.8.
The Tak first version whilst the softest certainly has character especially if you like funky soap bubble bokeh. Maybe it's my copy but the Tamron doesn't do anything for me. The Tak 3.5, M 2.8 are good, the FD 2.8 and Tokina 2.8 are very similar in sharpness and contrast. And they are sharp. The OM 2.8 is almost as sharp and contrasty as the Canon and Tokina but has nicer saturation.
My overall favourite would be the OM 2.8
Just my observations. Oh...all lenses adapted to a Panasonic GX7.
i have a problem with 28mm m42 lens on Canon 5D its Auto Beroflex 28mm F2.8 , it cant focus past 3meters , also after 50mm next most common lens is 35mm , 28mm is a bit on a wide side . I dont know , even today , classic is 50mm , after that 35mm. Wider then that are available but considered specialized .
As a camera junkie who currently owns the Pentax-M 28mm f2.0, Pentax-M 28mm f2.8, SMC Takumar 28mm f3.5, Konica 28mm f3.5... I'd go with the Konica. No joke, I have owned 12 or 15 28mm to 40mm lenses in the last 4 years from Nikon, Pentax, etc. (even that Soligor!? hahahaha); unequivocally the last version of the Konica Hexanon 28mm 3.5 is absurdly amazing. The later model Konica glass is in a class of it's own. The earlier version I was less impressed with, but OMFG the sharpness and contrast is substantially better on that last version. Not sure why Konica is so cheap...
My favorite 50 is a Konica 57 F/1.4, and it’s on my radar. If I can ever pick a Konica 28 up for cheap(ish) I’m all over it. I love Pentax, and have owned several 28-M 2.8’s and they were just okay for me. I sold a Super Tak 3.5, and kind wished I tried it out some more ... Minolta, Canon... none were up there with the Nikkor. Thanks for viewing!
did you try voigtlander color 28 2.8 AR?
I love these comparison videos
So great to hear! Thanks for the kind words!
Too bad you didn't have a Konica Hexanon 28mm early 7 element f3.5-22mm
It's on my list! I lost an auction recently for one:)
Could you please give me an advice, what would you choose for landscapes - Vivitar (Komine) 28mm f/2 MC Close Focus or Minolta MC W.ROKKOR-SG 28mm f/3.5? I'm taking photos whith a Minolta srt-101.
Personally I would go with the Minolta. It should be less expensive and the Vivitar really never gets super sharp even when stopped down to typical landscape apertures. Thanks for watching!!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 Yes it is, indeed - 125$ for Vivitar and 60 fir Rokkor. That's exactly what I read about Vivitars... Thank you!
I actually review the Vivitar in my other video. Check it out! There are other, less expensive choices out there too, like the f2.8 vivitars!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 Yes, I've already watched it, thanks!
I had the Tamron 28mm 2.5, it was fairly good, but I would not pick that Lens, the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 are very disappointing. The Tokina 28mm 2.8 was better than the Nikkor 28mm 2.8.
222-nd sub. It's destiny. edit : I got my Zuiko 28/2.8 for few euros, and I use it almost daily.
Nice! Thank you so much for listening!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 It was a pleasure. Greets from Croatia!
The best value is the H.
Panagor 28mm f2.5 is a radioactive lens ?
Hmm not sure perhaps others will know. My guess would be it’s the same as Vivitar 28 2.5’s and I haven’t seen those as being radioactive but always a good idea to use a Geiger counter …
Thanks for listening!!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 thanks