b top gun

Made an error on my original post.....the prime I am interested in getting feedback on is the Nikon 28mm f/1.4, not the f/2.8. 28mm does it for me for 'scape work, I just like the angle of view. Not too wide and not too narrow. Worst case, I stitch overlapping images together. Reviews of the Nikon 28mm f/1.4 are very good.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

I prefer ZEISS Distagon T* 28mm f/2 ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

This is a good place to start.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28mm-f14-e.htm

Also, I see someone suggested the Zeiss 28, make sure you know this is a manual focus lens.

Also, my Nikon 28mm 1.8 E is just as sharp and the savings is substantial.
If your only need is for landscape, you do not need a 1.4 lens, this lens is designed to be used at 1.4 or 2, that is why the lens was made. For landscapes your going to stop down, therefore there is no need for a 1.4 lens. When I did weddings and portraits, yes, I needed and used a 1.4 lens.
My favorite landscape lenses are, the Nikon 16-35 f4 (90% of the time) and the 24-120 f4 (10% of the time) and they share the same filter size. My 2 cents.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In my humble opinion NOBODY needs a 1.4 lens for landscape photography.

Winslowe

Consider also the 28 f/1.4 Zeiss Otus, simply the best in its class.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

You might be interrested in the Photography Life review which compares the Nikkor 28MM f/1.4 and f/1.8 G lenses. Excerpt from their review:

"The difference is pretty obvious – Nikon designed the 28mm f/1.4E to be an absolutely stellar lens and it beats the 28mm f/1.8G in every way, at every aperture. What’s remarkable, is that the sharpness in the center of the frame at its maximum aperture of f/1.4 is better than what the 28mm f/1.8G can do when stopped down! And if you stop the Nikon 28mm f/1.4E down to f/2.8, it yields outstanding sharpness that most other lenses cannot compete with. Nikon did a phenomenal job with the 28mm f/1.4E – it will probably be a benchmark of wide-angle optical performance for many years in the future."

https://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-af-s-nikkor-28mm-f1-8g
You be the judge.

DBrock4316

To the original poster only, why such a wide aperture for landscape photography? Just curious.

User ID

No need to be so humble !

User ID

“Benchmark” ? Meh ... Anyone expects it will actually produce superior images, I got some Enron stock deals for them. But if someone actually needs a fast 28, it’s good to know that one’s not a dawg.

I do use fast 28s. Got three, no dawgs, but all of mine are just pokey old f:2.0 lenses. It certainly would aid focusing to have a 1.4, but I’m already adjusted to suffering along at f:2.0

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Well, it is winter...

User ID

Winter = more hours of darkness.
F:1.4 = more light gathering glass.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

For years, wider aperture lenses from just about every manufacturer have been superior in many ways beyond just aperture. They usually employed more sophisticated optical design, better construction, and noticeably better overall performance. I progressed through three different 50mm lenses for the film camera I used for many years...f/1.8, f/1.4, and finally f/1.2. Each one was a noticeable improvement over the one before...sharper corners, better focus design, better and more extensive lens element coating.

I currently own two 50mm AF lenses for my current cameras. Same manufacturer and same vintage. One is f/1.8 and one is f/1.4. Despite the faulty intelligence that I read over and over on this forum every day, the f/1.4 is superior in every way...sharper corners, better construction, longer focus ring rotation making critical manual focus easier. The difference goes far beyond the additional stop (almost) of sensitivity. There is no area where the f/1.8 lens is better than or even equal to the f/1.4.