I'm sure this is at least a decent lens. My question is, is it a lens not to be missed? Say in league of Canon L primes? I've seen some praising it to be in the league of Leica. Ken Rockwell says "This is Nikon's sharpest wide angle lens", even his love for Nikon is considered, it's another thing to say that it trumps all the other Nikons. Hype or not?
I don't have a 28 mm prime (not that I need one). I'll be using it on a 5D2, and also probably as a normal lens on E-P1. It migh be an excuse for me to dabble into "alternative" lenses, though a Nikon probably won't qualify as such.
The 28/2.8 AI-S is an excellent lens and also benefits from an unusually close 0.2m close focus capability.
It's not quite the equal of the Leica 28/2.8 wide-open and doesn't have the 3D-ness of the Contax, but otherwise there's few 28/2.8's which can exceed it.
I'd recommend it as a good choice overall for a medium-speed 28.
Yes and no. It's extremely sharp at f/2.8-4 at close distance, but not anything special stopped down and/or at infinity. The extreme corners never get really sharp at any aperture either, but vignetting is quite low on the other hand. Distortion is almost non-existant!
I'd say it's a very nice general purpose wide angle. Small, light, fairly cheap (depending on where you seek of course), and very sharp even wide open. Bokeh is OK too, and gets better the closer you focus.
All of the above is when used on FF.
Edit: I prefer it over the Nikkor 24-70 @ 28 mm, which probably says something about its qualities.
I use it on an XTi, and find that the crop body gets rid of any issues in the corners. Its a pretty nice lens, not as good as my Elmarit 35, which I use more often, but its a great little lens. I find the elmarit sharper, not that that surprised me, but this little nikkor is pretty sharp all in all. Didn't cost me much either..
mawz wrote:
It's not quite the equal of the Leica 28/2.8 wide-open and doesn't have the 3D-ness of the Contax, .
That's not completely correct.
If yu look at the 16:9 test, yes the Zeiss has better 3D. However, that test was done with a fairly close subject.
Look at the great test recently posted by Trumpet Guy. Check out any of the pairings at f/5.6 or greater, and zoom-in on the roof tops. The Nikon has significantly better 3D at far distances. Strange, but true.
The Zeiss is still slightly (SLIGHTLY) sharper, (or is that more contrast?) but not enough to be significant.
Also, the Zeiss is a pig as far as vignetting. I also personally prefer the color of the Nikon, though neither lens gives that fat, saturated "L" look (if that's what you like.)
Is the Nikon a "must have" lens? No, not if you can afford Leica, but it's tied for 1st with the Zeiss in the sub- $500 category. If you will use if primarily for landscapes, then IMO it beats the snot out of the Zeiss. If your use will be mostly close-up, the Zeiss or even the Zuiko 28/3.5 might be better.
One warning: They vary a LOT. You simply MUST buy a few, and sell-off the weak ones. -And of course make sure it's an AI-s, not an Ai.
Well, it depends on what you are comparing to. I can clearly see some "swirl" in the corners at any aperture. Not that I care for my own purposes, but picky people might concern about that. We're talking about things that isn't an issue at all at 1,1x crop.
Makten wrote:
Yes and no. It's extremely sharp at f/2.8-4 at close distance, but not anything special stopped down and/or at infinity. The extreme corners never get really sharp at any aperture either .
-Then you have a bad copy. (or a bad adapter) I bought three, and the one I kept is almost as sharp as my Zeiss ZF Makro 50, corner to corner, at f/8 - f/16 & at infinity. - The other two were good, but not nearly as magical.
Cableaddict wrote:
-Then you have a bad copy. (or a bad adapter) I bought three, and the one I kept is almost as sharp as my Zeiss ZF Makro 50, corner to corner, at f/8 - f/16 & at infinity. - The other two were good, but not nearly as magical.
Let's see some examples then! I think my copy is fine. I'm just realistic about corner sharpness.
Aug 14, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
What Makten says seems to mirror what Bjorn Rorslett says about this lens as well. Bjorn writes, "Images taken up close really are extremely sharp in the middle part of the picture and sharpness extends quite gracefully into the corners. Optimum near-focus sharpness is obtained at f/5.6 and f/8. For distant scenes, however, corner sharpness isn't that remarkable and ghosting under adverse conditions can be troublesome. There is some corner colour fringing present, too." So perhaps the differences reported are due to sample variation between lenses, but Makten's point of view is shared by at least one other lens evaluator.
Cableaddict wrote:
..........
Look at the great test recently posted by Trumpet Guy. Check out any of the pairings at f/5.6 or greater, and zoom-in on the roof tops. The Nikon has significantly better 3D at far distances. Strange, but true.
.........
Cableaddict is referring to this set of test images on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/tswen/nk28cz28
Be sure to view the original (100%) files.
I guess I don't notice much difference in 3D look, but I haven't spent much
time looking for it either.
The Zeiss look is something I like, but I must admit that for an all-around performer,
the Nikon looks best across apertures. There is a certain "zing" to the images
of the CZ at f/8 and f/11 that I like. The lenses are very comparable for landscape
work, in my book. I would choose the Nikon, though, if any wide aperture work is
intended. The Zeiss is no match at f/2.8
EDIT: I'm gonna take back that statement. The Zeiss fails most notably in
vignetting wide open, but the landscape performance is comparable in most other
ways to the Nikon at f/2.8
My apologies for not matching the exposures from the two lenses more precisely.
Regards,
Tim
P.S. In my test images it looks like I focused a tiny bit closer on the Nikon shots
than on the CZ shots. The adapter I was using on the Nikon at that time was
too thin, and allowed focusing way beyond infinity. Thus, I was tweaking it back
and taking images and trying to find the sweet spot for infinity focus.
I now have a Novoflex adapter (expensive, German adapter) that is perfect at
infinity focus on my 5D.
My Nikon fits in with Makten's characterisation. Though it is far from bad at infinity (and I'd hazard that it is better than the CZ 28, though I haven't owned both at teh same time), it excels at close distances. There is virtually no distortion at close distances (you can shoot a brick wall at 2-4m and it looks perfect), though there is some at infinity. It is a brilliant wide portrait lens, an excellent PJ/wide street lens and a great landscape lens (in my mind, brilliant>excellent>great).
My one gripe with it is the colour - it is significantly warmer than any other lens I own and its saturation is too high for my taste. Easily fixed in post, but it annoys me nevertheless. It is also a bit too strong on macro-contrast, in my opinion. I'd rather slightly less contrast so that I can do what I want in post.
trumpet_guy wrote:
Cableaddict is referring to this set of test images on my pbase site: http://www.pbase.com/tswen/nk28cz28
Be sure to view the original (100%) files.
You can clearly see what I'm talking about regarding corner sharpness. Looks exactly like mine.
"And it probably is Nikon's best wide prime." Mawz, this being a near-ideal FL for me, I went through a lot of research into the options (for native Nikon) and came to the conclusion that the 28/2 is Nikon's best 28mm, overall. The short MFD seems to suggest what the 28/2.8 is all about - close up work. Bjorn Rorslett is very clear on the difference in near/far performance of the 28/2.8 (0.2m), reporting CA, ghosting and soft corners for distance shooting. None of which afflicts the faster Nikkor, which comes with a weight and bulk penalty. Good for Nikon to have made two fine 28mm AI-S lenses...which complement each other.
Just checked KEH, the 28/2 in EX+ cond they have for $600 (!) and the 28/2.8 (looks to be the 0.2m MFD) is $350...both figures are much higher than reported in Mr Colwell's fine lens price db. So this lesser known f2 lens certainly commands market respect, it seems. kind regards, philip.
Navyblue wrote:
Btw, anyone know how the AI 28mm f/2 compares to the AIS 28mm f/2.8?
Some love it, saying (as above) that it is better at far distance, less CA and better flare -resistance. However, I've read reports that it has less contrast & resolution than the 2.8 (it all depends upon which review you read) It also supposedly has more barrel distortion than the 2.8 I don't consider those to be minor issues.
Other reports say that the 2.0 is less sharp in the center, but more even into the corners. Others say the 2.8 is sharper at 2.8, but the 2.0 is sharper when they are stopped down. I dunno.
-but all this may simply come down to sample variation, since my 2.8 is so good in the corners and at distance. It is slightly prone to CA and flare, though.
I wish I had a way to post a high quality pic, but I don't.
Navyblue wrote:
Btw, anyone know how the AI 28mm f/2 compares to the AIS 28mm f/2.8?
The 28/2 AI is very similar to the 28/2 AIS; however, it only focuses to .3 instead of .25 like the AIS. I prefer the 24/2 AIS.
