Anyone have any experience with the 28mm 2.8D?

[Ballistics]

I'm thinking of going with primes for my wider angles.

I am having a hard time making a decision.

I am also looking into the 35mm 1.8G but I am seeing some bad reviews.

This way I will have the 28,35,50 primes.

 

[dots]

Consider one of these? Flickriver: Photos taken with Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF lens

 

[Ballistics]

Consider one of these? Flickriver: Photos taken with Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF lens

Is that a 20mm or a 28mm?

 

[dots]

20 i think. Not trying to divert your thread away from 2.8/28..just think 28mm and a 35mm on DX a bit limited, considering the outlay.

 

[Ballistics]

20 i think. Not trying to divert your thread away from 2.8/28..just think 28mm and a 35mm on DX a bit limited, considering the outlay.

I figured since I had an 18-105, the 18 @ 3.5 would be good enough for those real wide shots.

 

[dots]

Maybe fine yes..in the same way, the 18-105 covers 28, 35 and 50. A 20 Nikkor, assume would be/must be much better optically than the zoom at 18. The 35mm seems to me the least useful of the three, on DX. But..it's good to have !

 

[Ballistics]

Maybe fine yes..in the same way, the 18-105 covers 28, 35 and 50. A 20 Nikkor, assume would be/must be much better optically than the zoom at 18. The 35mm seems to me the least useful of the three, on DX. But..it's good to have !

I

What comes into play is the price. I plan on picking up a used 28mm for around $100-150 and a 35mm for around the same price. The 20mm is more than double for both lenses combined. Plus I don't see myself using that wide of a lens either. I'll probably start out with the 28mm for a little bit before I make a decision on the 35mm. I started another thread a few days ago regarding fast zooms, but I can't make up my mind. Too many decisions, not enough money lol.

 

[dots]

The Nikkor AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D is an old lens but surprisingly it performed really good on the Nikon D200. The resolution figures are on a very high level and pretty even across the APS-C image frame. Vignetting is pretty low and the level of CAs is quite moderate.Typical for most standard zooms there's pronounced degree of barrel distortions at 28mm but otherwise it is a minor issue. The build quality is Ok but some may not like the rotating front element. Unfortunately the zoom range (equivalent to 42-105mm) isn't really all that attractive on an APS-C DSLR anymore.

Nikkor AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D - Review / Test Report - Analysis

 

[Destin]

I have a 28 2.8 D that I picked up on ebay for $110 about a month back. Reviews say that it's soft wide open, and they're right.

It's a great little lens, I love it. But I refuse to shoot it wider than f/4, and I prefer to be at 5.6. It's really sharp once you get past 4.5 or so, but below f/4 I find it too soft to be useable.

 

[Ballistics]

I have a 28 2.8 D that I picked up on ebay for $110 about a month back. Reviews say that it's soft wide open, and they're right.

It's a great little lens, I love it. But I refuse to shoot it wider than f/4, and I prefer to be at 5.6. It's really sharp once you get past 4.5 or so, but below f/4 I find it too soft to be useable.

How would you compare the sharpness to the 50 1.8?

 

[Destin]

I have a 28 2.8 D that I picked up on ebay for $110 about a month back. Reviews say that it's soft wide open, and they're right.

It's a great little lens, I love it. But I refuse to shoot it wider than f/4, and I prefer to be at 5.6. It's really sharp once you get past 4.5 or so, but below f/4 I find it too soft to be useable.

How would you compare the sharpness to the 50 1.8?

Past 4.5 it's roughly the same to my eye. Below 4.5, the 18-55 kit lens is sharper than it.

Here's a 100% crop of a self portrait I did with it. Taken at F/5.6, the focus landed on my eyelashes and the inside corner of my eye. I don't have any examples from 2.8 because I stopped using it there. Plan on using this lens like it's a 28mm 4.5 if you get it.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D is much better, but slightly more expensive.