So I'm searching some for something wider than my Tamron 35. I think 24 is too wide for my use. I've narrowed down to either Nikon 28 1.4 or the Sigma version, but does anyone have the Sigma version and are you happy with it? Thanks!
Another vote 28 1.4E. This is one of the lenses I likely won't sell despite moving away from F to Z mount bodies. Of course it comes down to price but Sigma... weighs 50% more.
I had and sold the Nikon 28mm f1.8g, great lens. Only reason I sold was for my Sigma 35mm f1.4, because I didn't care for the people pics I took with it. But great landscape lens.
Don't forget about the Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4...it's crazy expensive and a heavy beast, also MF only. Go for the Nikon 28mm f1.4e...wait and save the money for it if that's an issue. You won't be disappointed!!!
There are many amazing 28E shots in this forum. Those shots make it a VERY tempting lens. On the opposite ends, I also have seen great images taken with 28/1.8g and MF 28/2.8 AIS. And of curse the new Sigma, Otus, should be optically superb. With Z era, MF is gaining new life. Exciting time.
No, I don’t own Any of the above including Z. Comment purely based on what I have seen in this forum.
Best 28mm for Nikon F is the discontinued Voigtländer Color Skopar 28mm f2.8 SLii. Quite some vignetting wide open, but stays sharp and vivid to the borders.
Second spot is the Zeiss "Hollywood" Distagon 28mm f2 ZF/ZF.2. The "Hollywood" nickname refers to the dramatic rendering (some vignetting, curved focus plane etc). I find 28mm a somewhat dramatic focal length in the first place compared to 35mm so thats not exactly against intuition. Otherwise the Hollywood renders bitingly sharp even wide open and is very "alife" at any aperture. I dont use it often though, its mostly my backup should anything ever happen to my 35mm f2.
trevanian wrote:
So I'm searching some for something wider than my Tamron 35. I think 24 is too wide for my use. I've narrowed down to either Nikon 28 1.4 or the Sigma version, but does anyone have the Sigma version and are you happy with it? Thanks!
Check the lensrentals MTF, its much sharper than the Nikon counterpart. I've used it pretty extensively on an A7r3 and produced some solid results with it. Here's some pics from Mardi Gras and a beach trip. It's also pretty solid and durable. I just rented it again to use with the MC-11 on my Sony, I've been waiting on the e-mount release to purchase that version. It's more comparable to the Zeiss 28 otus than the Nikon really. It's also reminiscent of my 28/1.4 Leica Summilux, however the Sigma has less CA (purple fringing) and less vignetting. The Leica is fantastic as well however.
I also have the 24, 35 and 50 Art which are all great lenses. The size and weight of all 3 lenses is about the same as Nikon G versions so there is no downside in ergonomics.
The 28E along with the 105E/70-200E are some of the best lenses I have owned coming from Canon/Leica/Haselblad/Fuji/Sony. The 58G is a speciality lens that love using for portrait shoots.
If you're on the fence, the 28 f1.8G can be had used for around $400 in excellent condition, and it is very sharp (like most of the f1.8G primes) and produces great image quality - though the out of focus areas can look a little nervous.
I went the route of 28 f1.8G > 28 f1.4E, because I was primarily a 35mm shooter for that range and wanted to see what all the fuss was about regarding the 1.4E. It only took a month of shooting the 28 f1.8G to fall in love with the focal length, and now I've come to prefer 28mm over 35mm. It's a great combo with the 58 f1.4G and 105 f1.4E
The best I have used is the Otus 28mm f1.4, but I ended up selling it in favor of the 28mm f1.4 E that is nearly as good, is smaller, lighter, cheaper, is AF and has a bokeh that I probably prefer.
The Sigma seems great too.
Now at this point I am not sure it still makes sense to invest in wide DSLR lenses.
