28mm 1.8G

[nerwin]

I was wondering if anyone here at TPF who has Nikon's 28mm f/1.8G lens could share your opinion and thoughts on this lens.

I checked my Lightroom library and apparently I tend to favor the 24-30mm focal range so it makes sense to invest in a fast lens around that range. I originally planned to get the 24 2.8D but recently thought about the 28 1.8G after seeing the used prices on eBay, it makes more sense to get that and having 1.8 at 28mm could be really useful, especially when doing milky way shots.

I also considered the 24 1.8G but I find it bigger than I wanted but not really in my budget, the 28 1.8G I guess is pretty light weight and not really big, I think it's like the size of a 50 1.8G with the hood on. But of course once you put the hood on the 28mm, it's going to be bigger.

I use to own the 35 f/2D which I loved, however I felt having 35mm and 50mm primes was just too close and I favored the 35mm more so because it could focus closer.

The reason why I wanted a really fast wide angle prime was the ability to shoot wide in low light and still be able to freeze motion.

While I have the 16-35 which has VR, it's just a f/4 which doesn't let enough light in to freeze motion when the light is low. I had this problem at an event recently which I had to switch to my 50mm because I need those extra stops of light to finally be able to freeze the motion, but I wanted to shoot wider. Though...flash could of helped. Ceiling was too high to bounce anyways and not super fan of direct flash.

I do have the Tamron 28-75 but 2.8 at 28mm is just kind of meh.

So I just want to know from the users of the 28 1.8G if its worth investing in.

 

[jcdeboever]

I have used one but do not own anymore. I sold it when I was given a 17-50mm 2.8 Sigma and bought a used 35 1.8g. It is very sharp, light, and fast focus. You need to stop down a stop for better contrast. For my shooting, 35 prime made more sense.

 

[nerwin]

I have used one but do not own anymore. I sold it when I was given a 17-50mm 2.8 Sigma and bought a used 35 1.8g. It is very sharp, light, and fast focus. For my shooting, 35 prime made more sense.

So you were using it on crop?

 

[jcdeboever]

I have used one but do not own anymore. I sold it when I was given a 17-50mm 2.8 Sigma and bought a used 35 1.8g. It is very sharp, light, and fast focus. For my shooting, 35 prime made more sense.

So you were using it on crop?

Yes, it was a nice lens.

 

[jcdeboever]

At 5.6, it's tack sharp across the frame and has excellent contrast. Very sharp wide open in center but lacks a little contrast but to be expected. Hey, it's ED glass so you can't really go wrong. It focus' real close if I remember correctly.

 

[nerwin]

At 5.6, it's tack sharp across the frame and has excellent contrast. Very sharp wide open in center but lacks a little contrast but to be expected. Hey, it's ED glass so you can't really go wrong. It focus' real close if I remember correctly.

You forget to mention it has a gold ring, which obviously enhances the performance. Haha.

Yes I believe it can focus to nearly 1:4 which is pretty dang good for wide angle. Seems like it would be a fun lens to own, I mean I wish it compact like the 24 2.8D and 35 f/2D, but can't have everything!

 

[jcdeboever]

At 5.6, it's tack sharp across the frame and has excellent contrast. Very sharp wide open in center but lacks a little contrast but to be expected. Hey, it's ED glass so you can't really go wrong. It focus' real close if I remember correctly.

You forget to mention it has a gold ring, which obviously enhances the performance. Haha.

Yes I believe it can focus to nearly 1:4 which is pretty dang good for wide angle. Seems like it would be a fun lens to own, I mean I wish it compact like the 24 2.8D and 35 f/2D, but can't have everything!

It is light as a feather unlike my... 28 f2.8 AIS which is stellar on my Nikon F, amazing color, clarity, and sharpness.

 

[nerwin]

At 5.6, it's tack sharp across the frame and has excellent contrast. Very sharp wide open in center but lacks a little contrast but to be expected. Hey, it's ED glass so you can't really go wrong. It focus' real close if I remember correctly.

You forget to mention it has a gold ring, which obviously enhances the performance. Haha.

Yes I believe it can focus to nearly 1:4 which is pretty dang good for wide angle. Seems like it would be a fun lens to own, I mean I wish it compact like the 24 2.8D and 35 f/2D, but can't have everything!

It is light as a feather unlike my... 28 f2.8 AIS which is stellar on my Nikon F, amazing color, clarity, and sharpness.

Canon makes a 28 1.8 and its compact like a 50 1.8G, no idea why Nikon has to make some of these lenses so big. Must be their lens design?

I guess I need to decide if I want the higher image quality of the 28 1.8G or the compactness of the 24 2.8D.

 

[JonA_CT]

Someone here in CT on Craigslist has been looking to sell a Sigma 28mm 1.8 for short dollars. I've been thinking about it myself, but it might be worth the drive down. I think he was asking $200? Optically it's not as nice (I guess the corners have sharpness issues), but for what it seems like you want to use it for it might be worth a go.

 

[Derrel]

Read the Thom Hogan review of the new 28/1.8 G. Skip the now-ancient 24/2.8 AFD, I have it. It is easily bettered by newer lenses, but it is still usable for people work.
24 and 28mm are very different angles of view in an FX camera; might not sound like it,but the corners of the 24 are wonky, the 28 much less so.

 

[Solarflare]

My trusty AF-S 28mm f1.8 always felt like a close brother to my AF-S 50mm f1.8, because both lenses rendered very much the same: slightly soft wide open, needed to be stopped down to f/5.6 for best performance, but also a bit dull and boring and certainly all plastic as well. And both are reliable, weathersealed, not insanely fast in respect to AF but certainly fast enough. The only difference was the AF-S 28mm f1.8 is a lot bigger.

 

[nerwin]

My trusty AF-S 28mm f1.8 always felt like a close brother to my AF-S 50mm f1.8, because both lenses rendered very much the same: slightly soft wide open, needed to be stopped down to f/5.6 for best performance, but also a bit dull and boring and certainly all plastic as well. And both are reliable, weathersealed, not insanely fast in respect to AF but certainly fast enough. The only difference was the AF-S 28mm f1.8 is a lot bigger.

I'm confused. Are you saying there is no difference between 28mm and 50mm?