So I was thinking about investing in a wide angle, but I don't want anything with crazy distortion.
Does anyone have this lens? If so, how do you feel about it?
Nikon 28 mm f/2.8D AF?
(6 posts) (6 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
I have one, and I have mixed feelings about the 28mm AF-D. If you want super sharp images, the 28mm F2.8D is not the lens for you, it is not as good as Nikon's other prime lenses. I have an early 1980s grade B Tokina 28mm F2.8 prime that is just as sharp as the AF-D, and it has slightly better contrast than the Nikkor, so that should tell you right away that 28mm F2.8D isn't the best out there. There is noticable distortion on full frame / 35mm cameras, but not so much on DX bodies.
If you want a light weight, small form factor F2.8 prime with AF, by all means get the lens. Contrast isn't the greatest, although it can be fixed in PP. I noticed that the 28mm F2.8D has differing sharpness depending on the focusing distance, which I found interesting.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I would recommend the 24 2.8 AF-D for a prime. . .I was in a similar boat not too long ago, and looked at the 20 2.8, 24 2.8 and 28 2.8. . .24 2.8 has the "better" reputation as being sharper, which I can attest to. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
Take a look at sigma's too... the AF is slow and not that sharp, but that 20mm f/1.8 and 24mm f/1.8 macro (yes macro) can do awesome stuff
28mm is not wide unless you're on FX... on FX 28mm is an awesome wide, on DX it's 42mm which is normal.
for DX 20mm will give you 30mm which is a really cool wide focal.
Posted 3 years ago # -
And why exactly do you need a prime lens?
There are many current wide zooms same or better then any of the lens mentioned and much more versatile too.Posted 3 years ago # -
The 24 is certainly markedly better than the AF 28/2.8. The 20/2.8s are great too.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
