I am very pleased with the 28 1.4E on a D810. I am using it in 1.2X mode for a 34mm in normal use and flip to 28 when needed. Even have used in full DX mode (42 mm) and still plenty to work with. I had the 35 Art, 50 Art and 24-35 Art and I would take this lens in crop mode over them (as good as they are) any day (although I hear the new Sigma 40mm may give this lens a run for the money). The extra high resolution of this lens on a 36MP or higher sensor makes this possible.The color accuracy, rendering and focus accuracy are better on any Nikon over a Sigma in my view and I do not have to be concerned about autofocus hiccups. Expensive yes but worth it. Also, a lot is made about the lack of compression or bokeh or background blur of a 28 over a 35. I would say that too much blur with a 28 negates the whole point of this perspective to begin with. The extra resolution of this lens and lack of distortion makes the pop factor work better than just shallow depth of field alone. The cropability factor of the 28 and 105 lenses is amazing on higher res sensors. Well worth the costs in my opinion. I realize many photographers want to completely frame in camera but I see zooms typically have too many compromises and produce a lot of mediocrity. By shooting wide and then cropping in post I am in total control of the final result and avoid the unforgivable sin of being in too tight during capture. The 28 to me is the widest perspective for distortion free shots and allows for the flexibility of final framing later. Capture the moment first and then apply the artistic magic later. I see this 28 as an extremely versatile offering. Lots of creative possibilities and allows me to capture events and still create exceptional pictures with the same lens by adjusting aperture and subject distance. I realize that's technically true of any lens but the 28 to me opens up some creative possibilities and challenges as well, more so than say a 35 50 or 85. At this time its my only wide angle lens and I have no regrets in buying it. Cant say that about a lot of lenses I have sold over the past couple of years. I will be keeping this and the 105 for the long term, even if I pick up a Z body in the future. Just one point of view, YMMV
As usual the image thread doesn't disappoint. I have the 35mm Art 1.4 which is beautiful when it hits but the outer focusing points can be hit or miss. I was looking at the 35mm 1.4g but I'm thinking about giving the 28 1.4 a shot. Down the road I might get the other focal length in the 1.8g. Is there a better performer between the 35 1.8g and 28 1.8g?
For prime lenses with AF between 20mm to 35mm,
I own the 24mm f/1.4G, 28mm f/1.4E, 35mm f/1.4 Art, 20mm f/1.8G, 24mm f/1.8G, 28mm f/1.8G, 35mm f/1.8G.
For the f/1.4 all are very close and is very difficult to say which is actually better than the rest, or maybe I would say the 28mm edge out slightly due to it being the latest design with better bokeh. No interest for the 35mm f/1.4G because it is inferior to the 35mm f/1.4 Art.
As for the f/1.8G I would rank them as 24mm, 20mm, 28mm, 35mm. Both the 28mm and the 35mm have minor mustache distortion which are difficult to correct and not suitable for architecture or interior photography.
Since all are of different focal lengths or maximum apertures, so one has to decide what one really needs or willing to pay.
hans98ko wrote:
No interest for the 35mm f/1.4G because it is inferior to the 35mm f/1.4 Art.
I agree with your analysis but respectfully disagree with this statement. Yes, the 35 Art is surely a great lens, but I have never warmed up to its somewhat "clinical" rendering. I bought the 35 f/1.4 G and after some testing sold the 35 Art, so for me, the 35 f/1.4 G is the better option. It definitely has worse CA than the Art, but renders more pleasantly (to my eyes), with OOF backgrounds looking "smoother".
I'm not trying to challenge what you said, mind, just offering a different opinion. I guess what one thinks is "inferior" depends on personal preference, especially as "rendering" is not a measurable quality.
That said, I guess the 28E outperforms all other Nikkor lenses in the 24-35mm focal range, but what I see from the 28 f/1.8 G doesn't look to bad, either. I love my 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 Gs both, mostly for their beautiful rendering, but it looks like the 28E has a very similar rendering with added sharpness. I'm just more of a 35mm guy, otherwise I'd be all over this lens.
Some really beautiful photos in this thread, keep them coming!
Definitely not an issue disagreeing due to each different liking as well as getting a good copy. I have read so many saying that they couldn't get it fine tune for good focus, as well as other related problems. But I have no issue with that. The only problem is for firmware updates as time goes on, that we have no guarantee Sigma will continue to do in the future.
🥂
For anyone reading this thread and trying to decide between the 28mm f/1.4E and the 35mm f/1.4G, here's something for you to consider: Canon has never offered a 28mm f/1.4. As a Canon shooter, I've always envied the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4, both D and E versions. Canon does offer a 28mm f/1.8, but it has potato IQ that's worse than a kit lens — yuck.
This was the year I finally "had" to upgrade my 5D Mark II, and I was seriously considering the D850 just so I could have access to the 28 1.4E. In the end I went with the 5D Mark IV, but only because I couldn't quite afford to swap out my 35 + 85 combo for the 28 + 105 Nikkor combo.
I know ultimately it comes down to 28 vs 35, and though it's a close call, I do think the 35 is the more pragmatic choice. However, the fact that Nikon provides the option for 28 and Canon does not might be a consideration for Nikon shooters. I'm aware the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 exists, but it's quite gargantuan. Part of the allure of the Nikon 28mm f/1.4E to me is its relatively demure stature. Coming from a lifelong Canon shooter, I think the Nikon 28mm f/1.4E is a jewel of a lens.
The Nikon 28 1.4 feels great on a d850, but certainly it’s big on a Z + FTZ. I imagine the Sigma would be even worse. Regretfully there’s no 28 1.8 S to compare with. Or perhaps that is intentional to not affect the 1.4 sales.
lukiano wrote:
The Nikon 28 1.4 feels great on a d850, but certainly it’s big on a Z + FTZ. I imagine the Sigma would be even worse. Regretfully there’s no 28 1.8 S to compare with. Or perhaps that is intentional to not affect the 1.4 sales.
The take away is keep your D850 for now with the 28E, 105E and 70-200E
A 28’s resolution is better then on a 35. And even for 24mpx this is visible. A lot! Sorry, but 35/1.4 is outdated lens for now. I had both lenses and sold 35/1.4 with regrets, but it’s true.
charles.K wrote:
The take away is keep your D850 for now with the 28E, 105E and 70-200E
No Charles, get ride of your 70-200E and replace that with 300PF. 70 to 105 can be covered by 105E, and 200 is too close to 105.
28E, 105E and 300PF, a all prime setup and is slightly lighter and smaller. Go spend some money and enjoy a little GAS. 🤑
