RoamingScott wrote:
Is the difference in image quality between the D and E drastic enough to pay $400 more and get a lens that is non-repairable and requires a screwdrive motor to fully utilize?
Well, you can't use the E version on any of Nikon's film bodies, so there is that. But yeah, they are very different lenses. The 28mm has a glow wide open that the E doesn't have. I also find the bokeh near the edges to be less busy.
grantgoodes wrote:
Yeah I have to admit I was somewhat collector-sucked into buying a 28/1.4D, and the "Noct" moniker applied to it by its fans didn't hurt (since I'm a very happy 58/1.2 Noct AiS owner). I also own the equally rare 18/2.8D , but due to its poor reputation was able to get one for a very reasonable price. In my collection of lenses, almost certainly the only collector's items are the two "Nocts", and my 18/2.8D will remain a fun but pretty worthless lens.
I can definitely relate to that.
I’m not a collector, but I still have a few of my old lenses from back in the days.
For me, for example, it’s a Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 L, which I bought new a good 40 years ago.
From a purely objective standpoint, it can’t keep up with modern, fast 85mm primes—especially when shot wide open.
It’s in such good condition that I could easily use the proceeds from selling it to buy a future relase of a Viltrox 85mm f/1.2 LAB Z
But it’s a special lens with a well-deserved place in lens history—just like the 28/1.4 D, a lens that was far ahead of its time, possesses a special charm, and enjoys cult status within its era.
It is also one of the most beautiful lenses in terms of its external design, almost entirely glass, with just a hint of the lens housing.
Seen that way, I’d never part with it—especially since I’ve built a history with this lens over the past 40 years; my Z lenses would have to go first.
