Why can't Nikon make a good 28mm? All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max...

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max aperture high price spread test better than the 28s.

A 35 is not wide enough for me on FX. A 24 a little too wide.

So why not a good 28 from Nikon? I'd use it as normal. Meanwhile I'll use my 24 and crop a bit :)

Haydon

I'm not sure if this is a question or a rant :|

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I have a Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF on my old, much loved Nikon N8008s film camera and got great results. Light weight, compact, 'tack sharp', excellent contrast. It became my 'go to' lens when I didn't need the capabilities of my much slower Tamron 28-300 macro zoom. I have not tried the digital version so can't comment on that, but Nikon certainly used to build 'em pretty well.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

A frustration, for sure. A GOOD 28mm f2.0 or f2.8 would likely never leave my lens mount.

Haydon wrote:

I'm not sure if this is a question or a rant :|

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

As a micro four thirds shooter and adapted lens user, I've wondered the same thing - does anybody make a good 28mm? 50mm lenses are good and cheap. I've tested my Canon FD 50mm f/1.8 magnified wide open and it's as sharp as it is at f/5.6. My 135mm f/2.8 is the same. 28 mm lenses though are crap on the same adapters. You just can't beat a native 25mm or shorter lens for m4/3.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

dtparker wrote:

All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max aperture high price spread test better than the 28s.

A 35 is not wide enough for me on FX. A 24 a little too wide.

So why not a good 28 from Nikon? I'd use it as normal. Meanwhile I'll use my 24 and crop a bit :)

The very minimal difference between 24mm & 28mm makes your post illogical and seem more like just a gripe than a true issue.
51.5 degrees vs 58.7 degrees field of view.
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
Flick between lens 1 and lens 3 on that list to see the difference.

Haydon

dtparker wrote:

A frustration, for sure. A GOOD 28mm f2.0 or f2.8 would likely never leave my lens mount.

I'm sure this will not likely help you on the level I hoped but if I'm not mistaken, one of Nikon's premier lenses the 24-70- 2.8 might be the answer but at a premium price. The only other solution is the 14-24 2.8 which is regarded as being unmatched in an UWA.

I do sympathize, as I understand the frustration when hoping for the perfect lens. Many of the high end zooms approach the sharpness of prime but only you can decide whether it's worth the compromise. Good luck with your decision.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

See if this helps
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42533306

amehta Loc: Boston

dtparker wrote:

All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max aperture high price spread test better than the 28s.

A 35 is not wide enough for me on FX. A 24 a little too wide.

So why not a good 28 from Nikon? I'd use it as normal. Meanwhile I'll use my 24 and crop a bit :)

Have you looked at the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G ($700)? It tests very well with DxOMark, basically as well as any current Nikon f/1.8 or f/1.4 except the 85mm primes.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

dtparker wrote:

All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max aperture high price spread test better than the 28s.

A 35 is not wide enough for me on FX. A 24 a little too wide.

So why not a good 28 from Nikon? I'd use it as normal. Meanwhile I'll use my 24 and crop a bit :)

*******************************************
I have a Nikkor 28mm lens from my film cameras. Never had any problems with quality from that lens. But then, I go out and use the lens, not just read other peoples thoughts on them. Oh and it does PC for me.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

dtparker wrote:

All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max aperture high price spread test better than the 28s.

A 35 is not wide enough for me on FX. A 24 a little too wide.

So why not a good 28 from Nikon? I'd use it as normal. Meanwhile I'll use my 24 and crop a bit :)

You have an awful lot of lenses, one of which is "not wide enough", one of which is "too wide" ...... so what does that make your AF 20mm ?

Then you add "I'd use a good 28mm as normal".

Maybe, as Amehta suggests, you've just not "discovered" yet the AF-S 28mm f1.8G ! You have a modern Nikon full frame camera. My suggestion, based upon the above comments ...... sell your AF 20, 24 and 35 and buy the newer 28 !

Fewer lenses to worry about .... and problem solved !

D700 and 28mm f1.8G (no flash)

(Download)

D700 and 28mm f1.8G

(Download)

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

dtparker wrote:

All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max aperture high price spread test better than the 28s.

A 35 is not wide enough for me on FX. A 24 a little too wide.

So why not a good 28 from Nikon? I'd use it as normal. Meanwhile I'll use my 24 and crop a bit :)

Why is not a zoom an option?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

dtparker wrote:

All reviews I've ever read of Nikon 28mm lenses say there are better lenses elsewhere in the lineup. The 24mm and 35mm, even at less than the max aperture high price spread test better than the 28s.

A 35 is not wide enough for me on FX. A 24 a little too wide.

So why not a good 28 from Nikon? I'd use it as normal. Meanwhile I'll use my 24 and crop a bit :)

So what did you not like about the 28mm Nikkor you tried?

DickC Loc: NE Washington state

rjaywallace wrote:

I have a Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF on my old, much loved Nikon N8008s film camera and got great results. Light weight, compact, 'tack sharp', excellent contrast. It became my 'go to' lens when I didn't need the capabilities of my much slower Tamron 28-300 macro zoom. I have not tried the digital version so can't comment on that, but Nikon certainly used to build 'em pretty well.

I agree too! I have that lens and am more than happy with it!! :-)

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

The 28mm F/1.8 G is a great lens. What is your issue with it? It's sharper and has better CA than any of the D lenses you have listed in your inventory in your signature..