Why can't Nikon make a good 28mm? (Page 2): The 28mm 2.8D is not tack sharp on a D600 or 610 wide open, the 28mmG is very close.

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

The 28mm 2.8D is not tack sharp on a D600 or 610 wide open, the 28mmG is very close.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

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

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

dtparker wrote:

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 believe the 28 f/2.8D is identical to the E version, only with AF. If you can find one, and do not mind manual focus, the 28 f/2.8 AIS is one of the sharpest 28 anyone ever made. I share your view on wide angle zooms.

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 :)

dtparker wrote:

Thank you for all the replies. This is the first ... (show quote)

So obviously this is a case of you not doing your research properly, and not even looking to see what the options were.

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

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 28 AIS that I love. I use it with my Nikkormat and my D600. Very sharp with wonderful contrast.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

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.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

dtparker wrote:

Guilty as charged. Happy now? Sorry if I bothered you. Isn't his forum about exploring options?

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.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

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.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

dtparker wrote:

Cool. No clue what you are talking about, but cool. I made no statement, I asked a question. Whatever.

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.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

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.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

The 28mm f/1.8G is outstanding.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

asiafish wrote:

The 28mm f/1.8G is outstanding.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Agreed...Great little lens. If you want a 28mm prime, and can't find the old 28mm 1.4. this one's the way to go.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

Gonna look for a refurb. Thanks all.

rbfanman

No lens is tack sharp wide open. All are sharpest a stop, or two, in from wide open.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

rbfanman wrote:

No lens is tack sharp wide open. All are sharpest a stop, or two, in from wide open.

Not true. No "inexpensive" lens is tack sharp wide-open. My Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron-M is tack-sharp wide open, stopped down, pretty much at any aperture and distance. The newer (and crazy expensive) APO Summicron is ever sharper.