A Comprehensive Test of Five Nikkor Lenses in the 28mm and 35mm Focal Lengths

This is something I've been meaning to do for a while - a test between the three different 35mm and two 28mm lenses I own. Why? Well, to decide which one would be best for a typical landscape.

I simply set up my tripod in the backyard and shot frames with all of the lenses with some trees at/near infinity and looked at the center and one corner. I used my Nikon D800E. The corner doesn't match between the two different focal lengths obviously. I did a simple edit in Lightroom and applied the same edit to every photo.

I tested the lenses at full aperture (different for each lens), f/2.8, and f/8. I'm throwing out the full aperture test if the lens was faster than f/2.8 because they were all uniformly terrible.

Let's see if I can get these photos to line up okay:

                                      f/2.8                                                                                      f/8

35mm f/1.4 AI:        

35mm f/2 AF:         

35mm f/2.8 pre-AI: 

28mm f/2 AI:          

28mm f/2.8 AI-S     

Okay. Still with me? As you can see, most of the shots at f/8 look about the same. Interestingly, looking at the file size, generally speaking it corresponds with the amount of detail in the photo. Anyway - so who wins? Well, the 35mm f/1.4 definitely loses. Even at f/8 it's not that good. The one that stands out (as I expected, actually) is the 28mm f/2 AI lens. The surprise here is that the 35mm f/2.8, though dismal wide-open at f/2.8, at f/8 is quite good, easily beating the modern AF lens. I know from experience that this is a sharp lens, especially on 35mm b&w film. If I would've continued to stop down, it might've stuck out and beaten the 28mm f/2 at f/11 or f/16 (the issues of diffraction here are a topic that I won't broach in this article). The much-vaunted 28mm f/2.8 doesn't really hit the mark (and no surprise as it shines more in close-focus type shooting) and the 35mm f/2 AF-D lens really doesn't perform that well. To its credit though it did take a fall two years ago and may or may not be in 100% condition.

Now the corners are where things get interesting. If you are still interested, click on "Read more" to see the rest of my test!

More E6, and a direct comparison of 4x5 Provia with D800E (updated)

There were some lovely Japanese Magnolias blooming in my yard so I clipped off a couple today and took it to the VSU lighting studio to experiment with the lighting equipment and shoot a couple sheets of E6. Flower photos are cliche I know but they still make pretty subjects and are fun to shoot, so whatever.

First, here is the Provia 100f 4x5 sheet, shot with a 210mm Symmar-S, slightly cropped on the sides:

And here is the D800E shot with a 55mm Micro:

Now here is a 100% crop of the 4x5 image, with the D800E file up-rezzed to match the size:

Now, the D800E here is at a disadvantage. For one, I shot this at f/16 so diffraction was dulling the finest details (of course, the Provia shot was at f/22, but the large sheet of film mitigates that). Also, upsizing the D800E file also puts it at a disadvantage, but I think it is fairer than downsizing the 4x5 shot.

I think despite the odds stacked against it, the D800E has ever so slightly more fine detail (see the striations in what I think are the "anther"), but the Provia seems sharper due to the grain. So which is better? Matter of taste I suppose. I should have shot a sheet of Velvia 50 for the super-saturated color, as that film would impart more of a "look" than the middle-of-the-road Provia.

That being said, the Provia did show some characteristics, and not necessarily good. The cup and water were noticeably blue before I did some selective color correction. I've noticed before that Provia gets very blue in the shadows. The natural color balance of digital makes it so easy to work with. Truly, color film is not easy to get perfect colors with, but if you are printing digitally anyway it hardly matters.

Update:

Thought I'd post the b&w version I took, with T-Max 100 film developed in Rodinal:

For those wondering...this shot isn't really any higher resolution than the Provia. It is slightly grainier. I can attribute that to the Rodinal. If I used T-Max RS developer it might actually be a bit more detailed, sharper, and lower grain than the Provia.

I won't make any qualitative statements about the ultimate resolution of film, but considering these photos, and how the D800E was at a disadvantage, I would have to say that 4x5 film, or at least a good chrome, is not really any better in simple resolution than the digital - when scanned with a consumer scanner. I'm using a Microtek M1, and the scans are certainly good, but nothing compared to a drum scan. That is something to consider when shooting film - the cost of a really good scan if you want to print something digitally very large.