Got my 28mm 1.8G & it is a MUST HAVE!

[tashley]

I ordered this lens yesterday having given up on my usual Nikon dealer getting one. I also threw in an SB910 flash, an 85mm 1.8 Nikkor and a Tamron 18-200 for the Nex... so a lot to test out all at once.

I bee-lined the 28mm because just after I ordered it yesterday, Lloyd Chambers published his review of it and he wasn't too impressed so I thought I'd better get on it quickly so I could return it without pain if it was a dog.

It is in fact a peach. Sure it has field curvature (check out the Party Trick sample below!) but if you pick the right aperture and POF for the subject, you can make it do good things. Best of all, I had a hunch that some of the odd behaviour I had seen in samples might be due to Lens Corrections and I think I was right. In the landscape example below, if you apply lens corrections, the bits of the image that gets most 'stretched' are the parts where I was seeing some smeary blur in other people's samples. An uncorrected files still looks fine unless the subject is architecture, and loses nearly all that smeariness at 100%.

This will be my wide landscape lens for when I don't want to lug the 24PCE. It will also be my travel prime to compliment the 24-120 zoom and the 50 R Cron, giving me an wide, fast lens for inside cathedrals etc.

Now to that party trick I mentioned: this image, which had focus on the centre of the second step up, shows the effect I mean: the urns and the concrete wall are in great focus right to the edges, and the centre distant subjects are also in great focus - but the peripheral mid-ground is OOF. You can make it do this when you want, by choosing carefully your aperture and POF.

original here

This landscape show how well behaved the lens is if you choose optimal aperture (about f5.6) and focus on the far mid-ground. Everything is in perfectly acceptable focus.

original here


and this close-up, again at F5.6, shows that you get pretty good edge to edge and almost great corner to corner (top corners are a little soft at 100%) by pulling focus a little forward - here I focussed on the edge of the door frame rather than the door itself then recomposed.

original here

All files in LR4.1 with Adobe Standard and tweaks, sharpening at 60,0.7,70,20 and Prophoto colour space.

I also love the lens wide open: it's a bit soft but in a nice way and I like the bokeh.

Looking at Lloyds review, he complained of focus shift. I have shot a lens calibration target and mine carries 80% of it's DOF forward wide open, that slips to 80% rearward by F5.6 but the target is always good. Bearing this in mind when focussing reaps rewards. I consider this perfect calibration.

One bummer: I have looked on my D800E for the 'left side focus point error' and never found it because I didn't have a fast wide. Now I find that I do have it. Oh well. One day I might get it fixed but it has never been an issue and this lens will never be used for multi point tracking, which is the only time the left hand point would ever get used in my life.

This lens is small, light and wonderful. It may not have Zeiss-like micro contrast but I think it is great value and really useful

 

[darr]

Thank you for posting these Tim!

 

[ddanois]

Having lived in the UK for about 2 years, I have to say that the landscape is wonderful!

Thanks for posting.

Derek

 

[tashley]

Thanks Dave, it is a lovely landscape though this one is just a test shot - otherwise I would have composed it properly! But I'm glad you liked it here. I am a big fan of the huge variety of landscapes you have in the USA.

 

[BJNY]

Looking at Lloyds review, he complained of focus shift. I have shot a lens calibration target and mine carries 80% of it's DOF forward wide open, that slips to 80% rearward by F5.6 but the target is always good. Bearing this in mind when focussing reaps rewards. I consider this perfect calibration.

Thank you Tim for this info.

 

[D&A]

Tim,

Lovely landscapes! Thanks for posting these examples and also your observations how to squeeze the most out of the lens's performance. A few observations from what I've seen of posted images in general from this lens and having played with some RAW NEfs I got to shoot.

1. When I looked over many of the images others have posted, I couldn't put my finger on it, but stated that in some cases the lens looked like it had great potential and in other cases, it sort of fell flat in terms of performance, as I stated in a previous post. It's as though the lens had multiple personalities and it might have come down to how the lens was used and what settings the photographer selected (as you have aluded to).

'From what you describe of your "party trick" (does that mean we should shoot with a nice glass of red in one hand? ), it appears the lens has significant field curvature. Therefore by shooting say 1/3 of the way into the landscape at f5.6, the expected large depth of field covers a lot of ground, but if instead you focus on something in the foreground, the cenral part of the foreground will be sharp but the edges (of the foreground) will be soft. Alternatively by focusing more (further) into the frame, say 1/3 in, the depth of field at f5.6 is enough to cover the center foreground in order to be sharp and the field curvature seems to then cover the edges of the foreground to also be sharp.

I would assume if my theory is true, when you focus say 1/3rd into your landscape, as you look at parts of your images at greater distances, the central portion will still be relatively sharp (as long as it's covered by the depth of field at f5.6), but the edges at these greater distances will be soft (due to field curvature). Lenses with great field curvature as one of their optical properties, often show sharp edges and corners at close distances, even though focus was on parts of the subject at greater distances.

I think it also comes down to "knowing" your lenses...their strengths and their weakness and of course their optical characteristics, in order to get the most out of them.

I oversimplified my explanation but sort of trying to get a handle on what is observed with this lens. Thanks again Tim!

Dave (D&A)

 

[BJNY]

Tim, may I see an example at F2 with the background blurred?

And, what happens at F4.....is it 50/50 depth of field front/back?

Thanks in advance,
Billy

 

[tashley]

Hi Billy, will shoot tomorrow and post... but as for DOF, you have to have one to really understand it: the POF remains within the DOF at all times on my copy, but wide open nearly all the DOF is forward of the POF and it slips backwards with focus shift as you stop down. Also (see Party Trick example above) there is a spherical rather than planar field of focus, or rather a sort of forward thrusting parabolic field. It cannot be explained, has to be experienced!

 

[tashley]

OK here are some shots

Tim Ashley Photography | D800E with Nikkor 28mm F1.8G | _DSC2502

the 4th thru 8th are at a mixture of F1.8 and f2. The 'three trees' shots are one at each aperture and were taken half an hour apart and slightly differently framed but show that at f1.8 the bokeh is a little more dreamy and the sharpness at POF still pretty good (centre tree trunk).

This mild dreaminess is shown again in the signpost shot. The other two shots (Urn and Kitchen) are F2 and show close and far, natural and constructed subject matter.

This lens is really pretty damned sharp but at F5.6 it is really very sharp. The bokeh is mildly hectic on foliage but only mildly. For me it is going to be used either for landscapes with lots of DOF or inside with almost none. But a nice use is dreamy landscape at F1.8.

Those files are downloadable at full size, 91% quality. They were shot RAW and the only thing that's been done to them in LR is my usual 60/0.7/70/20 sharpening. Profile was Adobe Standard because this wasn't about colour!

HTH
Tim

 

[mark1958]

i pretty much agree with your comments on the functionality. Not sure it is must have because I am not using mine as much as I thought I would. There is focus shift but at this focal length doubt I will use f1.8 too often. IF i do will use live view. I agree stopped down just a bit edge to edge quite good. It is better than my 24-120 at the edges but pretty close to the 24-70. Have not down a lot of detailed comparing with the zooms as of yet. I like the weight and I am carrying this lens with me on a work trip to Europe but have not used it yet..mostly using the 24-120mm/4.

 

[tashley]

I got it to make up a travel lens set with the 24-120; sometimes the extra f stops are good and as you say it is sharper to the edges. It's also small and light. I love it.

 

[tashley]

And here is an aperture series so people can see what goes with DOF at various aperture from F1.8 thru F11.

Tim Ashley Photography | D800E with Nikkor 28mm F1.8G | _DSC2515

Focus was made for first exposure, on the middle of the second step from the bottom, using centre point AF and then recompose. I then switched to MF and didn't refocus as I shot the series.

 

[just4fun]

Nice pictures!
I have 1 from Adorama, took out of the box, take few shot and put it back to the box, somehow, I feel it's not for me, probably because I already have 24 mm and 35mm f1.4G.
I will return it, if any of you want it without the wait, PM me, I can let you have it for what I paid (700 Net)
Regards
Sonny

 

[tashley]

People, grab it... even if you've got on of the 1.4 wides, this thing is really light and small, the perfect travel wide...

Nice pictures!
I have 1 from Adorama, took out of the box, take few shot and put it back to the box, somehow, I feel it's not for me, probably because I already have 24 mm and 35mm f1.4G.
I will return it, if any of you want it without the wait, PM me, I can let you have it for what I paid (700 Net)
Regards
Sonny

 

[Steen]

28mm 1.8G & it is a MUST HAVE!


what Tim says

© • click for native size (12.1 Mb) • in some browsers the F11 key maximizes and again minimizes <-> the web browser window


© • Nikon D800E • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 1/30 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4.1​

 

[davexl]

Thanks Tim for the review, I picked one up today, largely based on your images, which show a lens doing just what I want to do. So mucho appreciated for the effort...

These light and cheap f1.8 primes are a great addition to my kit, I must say they take bit of learning to cope with the focus quirks, but the potential is great.

I love my 14-24 and 24-70, but upgrading my 85 1.4 from D to G and adding the 28 & 50 f1.8G with a D800e has given me a quantum leap in capability.

I might just have to find a small travel bag for the 3 primes kit.

 

[davexl]

Hmmm, well after a few test shoots it is looking very disappointing for non shallow-focus use... just too bloody hard to get consistent sharpness.

I posted this on DPReview.

I have only had the chance to shoot tests twice outdoors and it is a very disappointing landscape lens if you are going for a nearly-everything-in-focus look. It is spectacular and sharp, lightweight, super close focus - about 1 to 4.5, but the field curvature is so wacky it is very hard to get anything resembling consistent "all in focus" without resorting to f11 to f13.

My 24-70 at 28mm gives marginally softer results all over, but far more predictable, consistent, and overall sharper, which was a surprise. I focus bracketed 4 or 5 distances on the one test scene at 5.6 though f11, and none were as good all over as the 24-70 was at f5.6 to f8. I needed to stop down about 1-2 stops more on the 28mm to get equivalent consistency of DOF across the frame, which of course negates any sharpnesss advantage.

Having small areas of the frame super sharp is a bit moot if large parts just adjacent are way blurry. You can see the Photozone results with the corners being sharper than the borders until f8.

Build quality seems fine - it is so lightweight it is hard to give the impression of robustness like say holding an 85 1.4D.

I can't see any evidence of decentering using on a homemade Zeiss Siemens Star Chart.

I love the shallow focus stuff, but I have the 50 1.8G and the 85 1.4G which do it even better. I can see myself sticking to either wide open, or f8 to f13, and skipping f4 to 5.6 altogether. I am not sure if I will keep it. It will take a lot of learning to master it.

I have put up full res test samples here vs the 24-70 at f5.6, f8, and f11.
28mm f1.8G field curvature - a set on Flickr

 

[glenerrolrd]

I found the same experience as Dave . Couldn t put my finger on it . Wide Open I loved the lens because it has good sharpness and contrast wide open (which has been unusual for most fast wide angles). So I set up a table top test and did a few slanting shoots of the exterior of the house . At this point I had the Nikon 24/1.4 G and the Zeiss 28/2 to test . Did the test wide open and at F5.6 . The 24/1.4 was easily the best at f5.6 enough to be seen without looking hard ..better micro contrast in the mid tones ,resolution and overall contrast .

They were all quite good ..but the Nikon 28/1.8 has some funky distortion (thats a technical term used when you don t know what to call it).

Too bad because everything else about the lens was perfect . Small light fast great wide open and less than half the cost of the 24 .

 

[D&A]

Hmmm, well after a few test shoots it is looking very disappointing for non shallow-focus use... just too bloody hard to get consistent sharpness.

I posted this on DPReview.

I have only had the chance to shoot tests twice outdoors and it is a very disappointing landscape lens if you are going for a nearly-everything-in-focus look. It is spectacular and sharp, lightweight, super close focus - about 1 to 4.5, but the field curvature is so wacky it is very hard to get anything resembling consistent "all in focus" without resorting to f11 to f13.

My 24-70 at 28mm gives marginally softer results all over, but far more predictable, consistent, and overall sharper, which was a surprise. I focus bracketed 4 or 5 distances on the one test scene at 5.6 though f11, and none were as good all over as the 24-70 was at f5.6 to f8. I needed to stop down about 1-2 stops more on the 28mm to get equivalent consistency of DOF across the frame, which of course negates any sharpnesss advantage.

Having small areas of the frame super sharp is a bit moot if large parts just adjacent are way blurry. You can see the Photozone results with the corners being sharper than the borders until f8.

Build quality seems fine - it is so lightweight it is hard to give the impression of robustness like say holding an 85 1.4D.

I can't see any evidence of decentering using on a homemade Zeiss Siemens Star Chart.

I love the shallow focus stuff, but I have the 50 1.8G and the 85 1.4G which do it even better. I can see myself sticking to either wide open, or f8 to f13, and skipping f4 to 5.6 altogether. I am not sure if I will keep it. It will take a lot of learning to master it.

As I posted elsewhere, I too after examining full Rez Raw files from this lens (controlled tests at various apertures and additional random test shots), found some optical anomalies. The look reminded me of images I obtained in testing certain lenses in earlier times whereby these lenses used resin coated/molded aspherical elements that were employed to keep costs down vs. hand ground polished glass ones. The Tamron 35-105 f2.8 zoom among some others (both zooms and single focal length lenses) was a prime example. I'd often find unexpected zones of softness at f-stops in parts of the image where sharpness should have been easily achieved and no two lenses were alike. Where there was sharpness (even when the lens was shot wide open), it was quite striking.

I've sometimes have observed this optical phenomenon on certain resin coated/molded aspherical lenses where price point was a consideration, but not always was this the criteria. Shooting some of these lenses wide open minimized finding some of these OOF zones since there was limited depth of field due to open aperture used, to begin with. Conversely, stopping down to f11 with these lenses minimized the amount of glass used, thereby giving relative edge to edge sharpness. It was the apertures inbetween that were the most problematic and where these anomolies showed up.

Late Addition---->*** What I forgot to add was that not long after testing some of these early lenses with resin type aspherical elements, I spoke with an optical engineer from one of the manufacturers of such a lens and he mentioned that the mass produced aspherical of this particular type is hard to pour and get precisely "right" and that often no two were alike...but neither are they in hand ground asphericals. Difference being is the thickness varied in the resin asphericals and this often led to varied optical performance and the anomolies as described. Whether this is what is going on with the Nikon 28mm 1.8G, I honestly don't know.


Dave (D&A)

 

[DDudenbostel]

Thanks Tim for the review, I picked one up today, largely based on your images, which show a lens doing just what I want to do. So mucho appreciated for the effort...

These light and cheap f1.8 primes are a great addition to my kit, I must say they take bit of learning to cope with the focus quirks, but the potential is great.

I love my 14-24 and 24-70, but upgrading my 85 1.4 from D to G and adding the 28 & 50 f1.8G with a D800e has given me a quantum leap in capability.

I might just have to find a small travel bag for the 3 primes kit.

I just purchased a D800 with 28&85 1.8 G's. I'm going to see how my AF-D 50 1.8 works and decide whether I want a new G. I might add a 105 micro but not certain. This will become my basic kit. I'll also add the 16-35, 24-70 & 70-200 VR II. Zooms for my work kit and primes for pleasure. I might also consider a 20 AF D prime for my basic kit.

Hopefully it will arrive this Thursday.