I've been using a ZEISS Distagon 28mm f2 for two years. The 28mm f2,8 Nikkor is not sharp. The ZEISS is a lot better: outstanding colors, very sharp; some field curvature wide open. Focus is manual but mechanically outstanding.
Lloyd Chamber has a very good review of this lens.
Hmm.... too bad I need to pay to see his review.
It's odd that there are not too many Zeiss lens reviews, except perhaps on the M mount.
The Nikkor 28mm 1.4 is an outstanding lens not produced any more. And on after market it costs twice as much as the Zeiss. Everything is compromise. May be one day Nikon will manufacture a 28f1,4 AF-S G etc. not as bulky as the recent f1,4 lenses (I know large aperture = large glasses!) But today Nikon's 28mm Prime lens offer is short
Sometimes you get what you pay for. the 35mm F/2 I heard wasn't that sharp.
Mike Gunter said:
While a chunk of me lusts after the name "Zeiss", I doubt there's nickel's worth of difference for it.
One could probably spend the same money on a good course in Photoshop (hey I teach those!), or attend a good workshop for some old fashion inspiration and do more good - then it would apply to all your lenses. ;-)
Haha, I think this advice is the most practical- there's no way I'm dropping $800 plus on a manual focus lens.
Besides, I can get a 105mm macro for almost that amount. Nikkor all the way!