 |
|
|
mdarnton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Sep 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $240.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Small by AF standards, cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not really that sharp in comparison with other primes in the Nikon line
|
|
|
Basically the same construction as the other lenses in the prime AF-D line--no better, no worse, but not nearly as sharp, crisp, or saturated. The one lens in the line that I think I made a mistake buying.
|
|
 Sep 17, 2008
|
|
marcelotk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 2, 2005
Location: Brazil
Posts: 63
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and well built
|
|
Cons:
|
Barrel distortion could be a problem
|
|
|
A very nice lens for the price. AF speed is good and not that loud compared to other older lens I have.
I used it on studio for kids portrait once when I needed to be close and interact with the kids and the photos became better then I expected for it's sharpness and acurrate focus.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2008
|
|
RBoh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, light and fast AF on D2x body
|
|
Cons:
|
Image Quality could be much better. Soft wide open, amount of distortion, colors don't pop.
|
|
|
This must be one of Nikon’s poorest designs. I was aiming for a marginally wide prime that was compact and was deciding between this and the Sigma 30mm f1.4.
Well I purchased this lens and have been fairly disappointed. It’s really soft until f5.6 of f8, where it sharpens up a bit. My Nikon 24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR was much sharper then this lens, which is a bit odd since this is a simple 28mm prime.
Distortion is also a consideration, though not a huge issue. The color rendition is flat and dull compared to other Nikon primes that I have adored. The AF is really fast on a D2x and it snaps into place very quickly.
If you’re considering this lens, keep looking because you’ll be disappointed. Unfortunately, there are too many choices out there; perhaps the bit-longer Nikon 30mm is a better lens.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2008
|
|
Jeff Spain
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $210.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
price, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Nice lens for 28 mm. Sadly with my stable of DX cameras, I no longer use this focal length. Picture quality is ok, but nothing to write home about. Oddly, my Tamron 17-50 mm zoom takes almost as good a photo at 28 mm and f2.8. The Tamron zoom is DX lens and vignettes wide open.
I will be selling this soon since with DX cameras, I no longer use this focal length.
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2008
|
|
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
ok lens for the price and paired with the nikkors 50mm, 18-70 and a 70-300 you got a gang of light masters for no money.
|
|
Cons:
|
too light and fragile and perhaps not wide enough if you got a DX format ..for the new FX format its a gem.
|
|
|
Its a good Nikkor 28 mm and espcially in the coming years when you can have Nikons FX full format as a standard this pearl is interesseting again.Otherwise ill go for the 35 mm or even the Old AIS 28 mm and of course the legendary 28 mm F1,4 *!! they are super but more costly.
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2007
|
|
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $90.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact/Lightweight, Sharp, Quick AF, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
FOV not that great on DX sensors, Slow prime, CA @ 2.8
|
|
|
Not a particularly useful lens if you already have a standard f/2.8 zoom. I got this lens in a lot on eBay so I only bought it for resale...can't justify keeping since my tamron 17-50 set @ 28mm is better than this prime. If your a prime only user then it may make sense to pick it up if you don't need the extreme speed of the sigma 30 1.4.
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2007
|
|
firewireguy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 20, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1436
|
|
Review Date: Oct 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, better built that the 50/1.8, reasonably quiet, good length for group shots indoors, cheap, very close and pretty quick focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Still quite plasticy, afs would be nice but I've never had a massive need for it.
|
|
|
I got mine second hand off ebay for £70 and think it's a great lens for the price. I find that the 50mm f/1.8 is a bit long on a digital for shooting more than one person indoors during parties etc, this lens provides a good compromise that works well. I can also use it as a wide angle lens on a film body if I ever manage to afford one of those. Pretty sharp lens and nice bokeh. I'd definatly reccomend this lens, especially for the price you can't go wrong.
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006
|
|
FillFlash
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $125.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Color, Image Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic build quality
|
|
|
This was my first prime lens. After owning Nikons 24-85, 24-120 VR, 80-400 VR and Sigmas 15-30 and 70-200 f/2.8 I decided to buy this lens on a whim.
What a blast! I am totally addicted to primes and have since added a 50mm f/1.8.
I slapped the 28mm f/2.8 on one of my older bodies, a D100, and have had trouble setting it down ever since. During a couple of recent roadtrips I was having so much fun with this combo my other gear never left the bag.
For $100 bucks, or whatever you can get it for, this lens is a real treat. You won't be disappointed.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006
|
|
BryanP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 162
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $50.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light, mediocre zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
Odd focal length when shooting digital.
|
|
|
I like these lens because they're cheap and light for it's speed and angle of view. The build is ok and they do not feel flimsy like the 50mm/1.8Ds. In fact, they look sturdier than modern lens like the 18-55/3.5-5.6Gs.
The lens can produce great images. They're not extremely sharp like the 50s, but they're sharp either way.
IMO the focal length is pretty odd though. With a the 1.5x crop factor, you get a 42mm focal length. Quite short of normal but a bit longer than 35mm. I would rather get 24mm to get a pretty good wide-angle view (it will be like 36mm).
I sold these and just got myself a 24-120 VR, but I wouldn't recommend against having these as beginner lens.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2005
|
|
LeifG
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1710
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light, small, sharpness and contrast okay. No flare/ghosting problems. Mechanics work fine.
|
|
Cons:
|
Optically disappointing, with significant chromatic aberration, especially in out of focus areas.
|
|
|
This small moderately priced lens appeals to anyone who wants high quality images at a modest price. The lens has a polycarbonate casing, and metal interior, and seems well made, but nothing special. The focus is smooth and the aperture ring works okay, though it will not be used on most modern bodies. There is a DOF scale and other markings are clear and easy to read. I used my sample for landscapes between F8 and F16, and was almost always disappointed with the results, mainly due to obvious chromatic aberration. I usually saw CA in the out of focus areas at high contrast regions e.g. leaves against the sky. I have one photograph of a huge ring of large mushrooms (Agaricus macrosporus) in a field, and the mushrooms are surrounded by obvious colour fringing easily visible on an A4 print: quite unacceptable. Maybe I had a bad sample, but I am not impressed. By all accounts, the better zooms can outdo this lens.
Leif
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2005
|
|
nikonjunkie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight compared the the faster version
|
|
Cons:
|
lightweight
|
|
|
A good lense for the money and very versatile. I would buy again...
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2005
|
|
Sectarian
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 26, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1888
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $309.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness, color rendition, contrast. Low chromatic abberation, low distortion, low price.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
A wonderful lens at a great price, this 28mm is a reminder of how a prime should really perform. As an f/2.8 it seems fast when all you are used to are zooms. Small light and economical, on an APS sensor DSLR it is also aritfact free.
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
12
|
74739
|
Sep 17, 2008
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
83% of reviewers
|
$160.44
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.27
|
8.00
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
