The 35 1.8 DX is one hell of a sharp lens. I haul out my D90 sometimes just to use that lens.
Why have a D800 if you want to shoot JPEG? You can get better conversions out of the latest Nikon DX cameras.
Dang, I don't even have my 28mm yet and now this! :)
Gonna look for a refurb. Thanks all.
If I can carry a 28 and leave my 35 and 24 at home (or sell them); and if a 28 is at the sweet spot that I'm constantly changing those lenses for, then I think a 28 is well in order. Sure there are other ways to crop.
I'll keep my 20mm for times when 28 is not wide enough.
f1.8 is a luxury. Looking forward to trying this lens out.
lighthouse wrote:
Anyway, thats all beside the point.
The main thing is that you have found an option to check out that you were unaware of.
I note that many users seem to love this 28mm F/1.8 G but Ken Rockwell bags it.
But to be honest, I really do not know why you would need a 28mm if you have good 24mm. The difference in FOV really is very minor.
Cool. No clue what you are talking about, but cool. I made no statement, I asked a question. Whatever.
lighthouse wrote:
Yes it is, and if you had worded your title and question differently I would have let you off the hook, but you made an untrue profound statement.
Your title sounds like it was chosen for shock value as a subheading for the "shilling/fishing" UHH newsletter.
Guilty as charged. Happy now? Sorry if I bothered you. Isn't his forum about exploring options?
lighthouse wrote:
So obviously this is a case of you not doing your research properly, and not even looking to see what the options were.
Good find, and glad you are back in business!
Thank you for all the replies. This is the first I'm hearing about the (apparently newish) 28mm f1.8 G - from what you folks are saying, it appears to be a winner, and may indeed be my answer. I don't usually read up on all the new stuff, perhaps I should do so.
The 28mm 2.8D version I tried was, to me, a very plastic, mechanically worrisome lens, at least compared to my 24mm 2.8D. It was not very sharp, either on my 610 or FA.
I think I will see if I can rent one of the 1.8 G, and see what results I can get.
As to zooms - I have tried many over the years, and I can produce better photos with a prime; thus my stable of lenses. As I think I've said most were picked up for a song from EBay or KEH, and they have served well. But I do need to simplify, and as you can see, I have 2 zooms in my bag.
thanks for indulging me.
Dave
That is a good lens. If all is set to Auto (or P mode) if you still get severe underexposure, it is probably time for service.
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 :|
Bigggest question is - what do you want to do with your lens?
Next - will this be your only lens?
Answer those questions and we can better help!
Welcome to here :)
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 moved from a D90 to a D610 and have never looked back. Got a cheap passle of decent prime lenses from EBay and KEH, and I am a happy camper.
I NEVER made images that look like film used to look using my D90. D610? Easy!
Enjoy,
Dave