Nikkor 28mm 2.8

[W.Y.Photo]

Im thinking of buying this guy: Nikon AF NIKKOR 28mm f 2.8D Lens 1922 B H Photo Video

Anyone have any opinions on it?

 

[480sparky47 46]

It's a dog. Soft all-around when wide-open, and still soft stopped down, especially in the corners. I've tried 4 copies, and have had no success in getting a good copy........ assuming they do exist.

I found an old-school manual-focus Sigma from the '70s that beats it.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I'm so glad I posted here before I went out and bought that. Thanks Sparky!!

 

[Derrel]

The earlier 28mm f/ 2.8 Ai is a better lens, but alas, it's old, and manual focus. This AF-D model is one of **the** cheapest wides Nikon ever made. It has a bad reputation, which it has earned. You don't want this lens on any modern digital camera.

 

[boomer]

Another good option would be the newer 28mm f1.8G lens. I happen to have one for sale...feel free to make me an offer

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I'd love to boomer, but I need to buy a wide angle prime tonight.

What do you guys think of the 35 f/2 D? Nikon AF NIKKOR 35mm f 2D Lens 1923 B H Photo Video

I would go for better glass but I cant afford much more than $400 right now. Also I'm trying to find FX lenses only as I'm going to be switching over to a full-frame camera soon.

I could get the Sigma 30 1.4 but its DX so id have to crop with it when I switch which id rather not. I'd like to have a real wide angle lens once I've gone FF

 

[480sparky47 46]

Sigma Mini Wide II 28mm F 2 8 Lens Nikon AI s D3 D7000 Film and Digital eBay

 

[Derrel]

I bought a used 35/2 AF-D in 2002, and it served me well until summer of 2014, when the diaphragm quit stopping down. Early production run 35/2 lenses were infamous for oil on the diaphragm blades causing a gumming up of the mechanism. Not sure what happened to mine...it occurred one day, right in the middle of a shoot. So annoying. I have always liked the 35mm focal length; it is a semi-wide angle look. I find it VERY useful for social photography. It's not nearly as wide as 28mm is, so it doesn't make everything "quite" so far-away looking, the way 28mm does, and which 24mm really does. On FX, a 35mm lens is very useful, even for portraits if used carefully. Sue Brice favors the Canon 35/1.4-L for much of her portrait work, so you can check her site out and see LOTS of people pics done with a 35mm lens on full frame.

28 and 35mm are two decidedly different length; neither is better, neither is worse. What I like about the 35/2 AF-D is how small and light it is, and the way it renders things. Again-semi-wide, without the steep drop-off to the background, and without edge distortion. It doesn't create that wide-angle-y look, and it works well for parties and receptions and a lot of landscape type shots.

If you need a 28mm lens, the 35mm lens just is not a substitute. The two lengths are actually quite different in what they do.

 

[ruifo]

If you don't mind manual focus lenses, here two excellent options:

• Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC (with focus confirmation chip) [$449]
• Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC (with focus confirmation chip) [$399]

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Thanks for the tips guys. I really appreciate it!!

I bought a used 35/2 AF-D in 2002, and it served me well until summer of 2014, when the diaphragm quit stopping down. Early production run 35/2 lenses were infamous for oil on the diaphragm blades causing a gumming up of the mechanism. Not sure what happened to mine...it occurred one day, right in the middle of a shoot. So annoying. I have always liked the 35mm focal length; it is a semi-wide angle look. I find it VERY useful for social photography. It's not nearly as wide as 28mm is, so it doesn't make everything "quite" so far-away looking, the way 28mm does, and which 24mm really does. On FX, a 35mm lens is very useful, even for portraits if used carefully. Sue Brice favors the Canon 35/1.4-L for much of her portrait work, so you can check her site out and see LOTS of people pics done with a 35mm lens on full frame.

28 and 35mm are two decidedly different length; neither is better, neither is worse. What I like about the 35/2 AF-D is how small and light it is, and the way it renders things. Again-semi-wide, without the steep drop-off to the background, and without edge distortion. It doesn't create that wide-angle-y look, and it works well for parties and receptions and a lot of landscape type shots.

If you need a 28mm lens, the 35mm lens just is not a substitute. The two lengths are actually quite different in what they do.

Thanks, I actually favor 35mm over 28mm as well. I was just under the impression that the f/2 was lacking in sharpness to an unacceptable extent and that the next cheapest option for FX lenses was upwards of $1500

I think I may go with the 35 f/2 D as it seems to be a favorable choice plus its that bit faster which will come in handy for a lot of the stuff I plan on doing in the future.

 

[DandL]

Thanks for the tips guys. I really appreciate it!!

I bought a used 35/2 AF-D in 2002, and it served me well until summer of 2014, when the diaphragm quit stopping down. Early production run 35/2 lenses were infamous for oil on the diaphragm blades causing a gumming up of the mechanism. Not sure what happened to mine...it occurred one day, right in the middle of a shoot. So annoying. I have always liked the 35mm focal length; it is a semi-wide angle look. I find it VERY useful for social photography. It's not nearly as wide as 28mm is, so it doesn't make everything "quite" so far-away looking, the way 28mm does, and which 24mm really does. On FX, a 35mm lens is very useful, even for portraits if used carefully. Sue Brice favors the Canon 35/1.4-L for much of her portrait work, so you can check her site out and see LOTS of people pics done with a 35mm lens on full frame.

28 and 35mm are two decidedly different length; neither is better, neither is worse. What I like about the 35/2 AF-D is how small and light it is, and the way it renders things. Again-semi-wide, without the steep drop-off to the background, and without edge distortion. It doesn't create that wide-angle-y look, and it works well for parties and receptions and a lot of landscape type shots.

If you need a 28mm lens, the 35mm lens just is not a substitute. The two lengths are actually quite different in what they do.

Thanks, I actually favor 35mm over 28mm as well. I was just under the impression that the f/2 was lacking in sharpness to an unacceptable extent and that the next cheapest option for FX lenses was upwards of $1500

I think I may go with the 35 f/2 D as it seems to be a favorable choice plus its that bit faster which will come in handy for a lot of the stuff I plan on doing in the future.

Have you considered the Nikon 24mm f/2.8D? Nikon AF NIKKOR 24mm f 2.8D Lens 1919 B H Photo Video

 

[LostLensCap]

I found this test.
Nikkor AF 28mm f 2.8 D FX - Review Test Report

 

[AKUK]

I can only add to what others have already said. The 28mm f/2.8 AF-D was a real step down from previous versions. I have the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-s with CRC. Manual focus but god damn that thing is sharp and it close focuses down to 20cm too. I had the 24mm f/2.8D. That was a pretty nice lens. Decent optics and fast focusing. A way better performer than the 28mm that's for sure. If you can live without the AF the Ai-s version is a real gem of a lens. Keen to see the Sigma 28mm Art, that is due in October. If the 35mm and 50mm are anything to go by, it will have incredible resolving power.

 

[shadowlands]

I like my copy. It is a good general purpose lens.

 

[nerwin]

I really love my 35 f/2, I bought it new from B&H last year..excellent lens. Much better than the 28 2.8D in my opinion. If you really want a 28mm prime, then I'd suggest the new 28 1.8G, its a beast of a lens..but very, very sharp. Not as compact as the 35 f/2 though! Love this little lens