PDA

View Full Version : How's the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 D AF?



fionndruinne
09-11-2007, 12:12 AM
Do any of you actually use it? I read the PhotoZone review; sounds like a mixed bag. Not terribly expensive, but some more vignetting at f/2.8 and distortion than preferable, although both of these can be corrected. $200 isn't terribly expensive, but I wish Nikon would update their primes list... an 18mm f/2.8 AF-S for say $300 would be nice.

herc182
09-11-2007, 04:13 AM
I had it then sold it again. The only reason i sold it was because i also had the 35mm f/2 which is a fine lense.
However, that being said the quality of the 28mm was very good. The 35mm is better tho!

coldrain
09-11-2007, 05:48 AM
The 28mm f2.8 does not make much sense anymore... A Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro (HSM) performs better in just about every aspect at 28mm...

fionndruinne
09-11-2007, 01:02 PM
Would the Sigma 18-50mm actually be as sharp as a Nikkor prime lens?

It's a pity wide-angle primes are so costly; I could definitely get some use out of one. Ah well, the Sigma 10-20mm is good enough I suppose... but almost $500.

coldrain
09-11-2007, 01:11 PM
Some primes are very sharp. Most primes are actually quite mediocre.
In the past zoom lenses were quite a long way from prime lenses, but some modern zoom lenses perform better resolution and CA wise.

What remains for primes is more light passing through... but that does not go for this 28mm f2.8 either.

fionndruinne
09-11-2007, 01:15 PM
Hmm. I thought a prime would, in theory at least, always be capable of better performance than a zoom, since there are less elements which need to move, and thus alignment can be more accurate. But I agree, modern zooms are very impressive.

VTEC_EATER
09-11-2007, 04:12 PM
Hmm. I thought a prime would, in theory at least, always be capable of better performance than a zoom, since there are less elements which need to move, and thus alignment can be more accurate.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, however, this lens is an old design. The lens had not been updated since its release back in 1994. Lots of things can happen in 17 years. The zooms are catching up with the primes, especially of the 2.8 variant. To me, I don't see the point in a 2.8 prime lens, unless its a long telefoto, or some micro lens. The 17-55 and the 70-200 zooms are amazingly sharp wide open at almost every focal length. Distortion control is probably the only thing the old 2.8 primes have over the zooms, and that is only at the very wide end - 17-24mm. Most everything else can be adjusted in post processing. Hell, even distortion can be changed in post processing.

toriaj
09-11-2007, 11:02 PM
Would the Sigma 18-50mm actually be as sharp as a Nikkor prime lens?

It's a pity wide-angle primes are so costly; I could definitely get some use out of one. Ah well, the Sigma 10-20mm is good enough I suppose... but almost $500.


The Sigma 10-20mm is currently on Amazon (via 47th St. Photo) for $449.95
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00XK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-9367176-8260762?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1189573113&sr=8-2