The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

28mm for D800(e)?

D&A

Well-known member
I can't wait to try a 28mm 1.4d I have coming soon, on a D800E I have coming soon as well, it may take me 1-2 weeks to get everything in here. To me, the IQ of the 28 1.4 was always superb. I owned one, and then sold it, like an idiot. I am correcting two wrongs I did, selling that and my 58mm 1.2 noct. I have the noct replaced now with a very nice copy, and now the 28 1.4 has fallen into place. Unexpectedly I might add. I cannot wait.

Doug
The Nikon 28mm f1.4D was always a favorite of mine but there is a tremendous amount of variability in performance between samples. I've written about it in a past Getdpi post. It has very film like qualities and a rendering that's both sharp and pleasing to the eye.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
I'm going to post this and it is off topic no question. But it's great data for all of us to know and learn.

A fine member PM'd me about posting a image of all these kids without a released and its a excellent excellent question and hopefully this will keep folks out of trouble. In this shot with the kids they are all minors obviously and with that you absolutely need a release that is signed by there parents or guardians so his question is absolutely correct without a release I can get in serious trouble, lawsuits and all that.

Now my answer to him is here.


Actually that is a excellent question and your correct they should not be published anywhere without being released. They are all released though as my client here is the charter school and we released all the kids in all 4 schools we shot. Interesting out of all the schools only about 4 parents would not sign off on the release, so we left those kids out on the shoots. Great question and you are dead on with the release. These are certainly things every shooter should be aware off. I'm going to post this as its great data.

So lesson here folks don't ever take risks on stuff like this , get a release they are readily available on the net. In this shoot we actually drew up a very specific release for the parents to sign as we needed to cover worldwide distribution. This job is a national ad campaign so we need to cover everything that these images can be used for.
Excellent advice regardless of the laws that exist in a particular locale, especially when it concerns minors. I often have to watch the same issues when photographing well known recognizable public individuals and performers and that's why as much as I'd like to post some of my more desirable material here and elsewhere, I don't. If in doubt, it's best to err on the conservative side. Often times even when it might appear to be OK to post certain images, it's sometimes appropriate to defer out of courtesy to a client or known individual.

I've often photographed in similar type settings as Guy and even when releases and permission is obtained, I proceed with caution.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hello Guy,

thanks for the feedback on the Nikon 28mm. The image quality in this shot looks great, no doubt. It is only at 100% that I see the blurry areas in the test shots I have examined. As an example I hope it is ok if I link to a full size file on the cameralabs flickr page.

All sizes | Nikon AF-S 28f1.8G @f5.6 52880 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If you scroll to the very bottom left of the image, then scroll right until you see the lilac flowers and then go up until you see the house+trees just above lilac flowers - there you can see it. it looks like camera shake, but most other parts of the image are fine.

I have witnessed this in many pictures by a few different people, the shakey area(s) are always roughly in the same spots though.

I am sure I am guilty of pixel peeping here, but I would like to to print at a maximum size and then this will show.

What I see (and sometimes stronger than in this image) is probably the field curvature that was mentioned by some in the earlier topic about the 28mm 1.8g by Tim Ashley.
Although not always appearing the same as in the example you posted with the 28mm f1.8 lens, the zone of blurriness reminds me of something similar I've seen in some modern moderate wide angle fixed focal length and aspherical lenses. Most notable of these was one of the first wide angle to telephoto zooms, the Tamron 35-105 f2.8 lens. It often had zones of blurs randomly in the images it produced. It may be due to the pouting of the resin of the aspherical element.

Another strange example of random zones of blurriness (often seen at 100%), derived from Pentax's 35mm f3.5 645 lens. I've seen this in quite a few samples of this lens and wrote about it in length in the comprehensive lens tests of Pentax 645 lenses here on Getdpi. Again it may be attribued to the pouring of resin for the aspherical element.

Dave (D&A)
 

Lightleak

New member
Hi Dave, yes, the blurry areas are indeed located very randomly across the image. I have no real idea of how lenses nowadays are produced, but I have heard about problems due to the resin coating on lenses.

I guess one has to be really deep into this topic to understand why a lens manufacturer would pour plastic over their glass.
 

jph

Member
Let's see:
- You're okay with manual focus
- You're okay with stopping the aperture down

Did I miss it? No one recommended the 28mm f/2.8 Ais?
The 28mm f/2.8 Ai is good also, but doesn't have CRC (Close Range Correction).
 

Photojazz

Member
I like the 28 1.4 rendering, as mentioned. I'm not sure how much I will like it on the D800E, we'll see. I don't even know that my copy will be up with what I had. All is variable. I saw it as a very artistic tool, so having it, if I get a good one, in addition to the 24 1.4G is not a bad thing. The day when having to much fast glass is a problem, is a day I look forward to. lol.

The sharpness of the rocks, the wood, in my shot above amaze me. That was one of the things I always felt the 28 1.4D was very good at. I've also seen some very artsy stuff with it. So, that's the appeal for THAT 28, I can't say about the others in Nikon.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The 28mm FOV is my most used lens in both my M and D800E kits . My applications are primarily street and travel and I am rarely looking for the absolute best for landscape . But I do appreciate the differences in lens design. Most of my work has the subject inside 20 Ft often near 6ft ...but the wide angle provides necessary context . Required DOF is always a consideration .

The faster lenses rarely provide a flat field ..but I draw a distinction between field curvature and edge sharpness ...I don t shoot much of anything "flat" but I do use the edges .

The best 28 that I ve found for the D800E is the Leica R 28/2.8 V2 . It does suffer from some field curvature but it has the advantage of floating elements making sharpness inside 5ft just excellent . It handles beautifully on the D800E (without a battery pack) . Built in hood ,small form,short throw . I place a large emphasis on color rendering and to my eye the Leica R has the most universally pleasing .

I ve tried the 28/2 ZF and the 28/1.8 Nikkor both have different signatures ...the zeiss could work but is an older design with plenty of aberrations ...the 28/1.8 has been discussed . The 24/1.4 Nikkor was better than either the 28/2 zf or the 28/1.8 by a noticeable margin in my tests . I just acquired Guy s 25/2 ZF.2 as the limitations of the 28/2.8 R are (1) speed ...I need a f2 or F1.4 lens and (2) 24 is a little better for street than 28 .

I don t know of any 28 for the Nikon mount that is known for producing a flat field .
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I'm using the 28mm f/2.0 AIS, but haven't posted on this thread until now for one reason: The OP mentions landscape photography, and this lens, or at least my copy, isn't ideal for that. It's in no way ultimately sharp, and the more modern 28/1.8 AF-S runs circles around it. For other purposes, like environmental portraits, it's excellent. It has a very "charming" rendering and a bokeh that borders to fairytale soft, particularly in the transitions. Must be said though that I haven't tried it on more than 12MP (D700). Here's a sample wide open at ISO 6400:

 

tashley

Subscriber Member
The 28 1.8g has a wavy field of focus, which is why some areas can appear blurry even if you get the edges and centre sharp. It is inherent in the design of a fast wide which is light and moderately inexpensive. It generally doesn't show up in tests because most tests re-focus for each part of the frame. Nikon only publishes F1.8 MTF data for this lens so this is conjecture but I am pretty certain I am right. But it isn't unusual: even the 35mm lens on the Sony RX-1, a truly brilliant lens, has the same thing. So does the Leica 35 Lux FLE, depending on how you focus it....
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
For me the Nikon 28mm 1.8 will be more my PR lens than anything else. Great for grip and grin crap which pays the bills around here. I have the Leica 19 and the Sigma 35mm but my next lens for real type work is the Leica 28mm if I can find one for good money or get my Zeiss 25 f2 again. I honestly hated selling it but the Leica 19 came up and as usual I was caught with my pants down with immediate money to get the 19 so the 25 had to go. I think its the best in that 24/25 range.

The 28mm helped me do that big gig and I'm mostly pleased with the results but I know there are better lenses. It's hard to sneak a decent lens by me when I usually have the best I can get my hands on.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I agree with Guy: this is an incredibly good lens for many sorts of work and it seems to AF well too. The problems are related to its use for things such as landscape and architecture, where the soft zones will show up and where the wavy field makes it hard to focus of-centre subjects using F&R and where the camera in question might not be very good with anything but the central bank of AF sensels. The one qualification I would add is that despite a wavy sub-shape, the field of focus is fundamentally cone-shaped and this can make for a really useful landscape lens when used in portrait orientation or when photographing things such as alleys of trees or buildings in landscape orientation.

It's a good default assumption that we want flat field lenses but in the real world, subject shapes very often are better served by other 'shapes' of lens.
 

robsteve

Subscriber
If you just want it for landscape, the Leica 21-35mm is probably the best lens on a digital sensor. Since it is a modern design, it doesn't have the field curvature that the Leica 28mm has and performs as well, maybe better across the frame. It is also better than all the fixed R lenses in its range. On the D800E it will hit the mirror from about 23mm, but you can zoom to the 24mm setting, go to live view and with the mirror up, shoot in the widest focal lengths.

Here is the 21-35mm in the 21mm setting. What looks like red vignetting, is just the red brick underneath the white paint. This was Guy's lens originally.



Cropped in to show the detail.

 

Lightleak

New member
The wavy field of focus really disqualifies the 28mm 1.8 for my intended use as landscape lens. As nice the weight and price, however unpleasant are the smeary areas appearing occasionally. As you have shown it will work nicely as a lens for different tasks, but since I am looking for something to photograph landscapes this will not satisfy me.

So I guess I will be looking at something a bit wider, say 24mm or 25mm.
So far the Zeiss 25mm looks good, I would love to see more full res samples though.
The nikon 24mm 1.4 doesn't do too well on a d3x, if we are to believe photozone.

Is there any other good 24mm lens for the d800e I am not aware of?
Maybe the 24mm pc-e in unshifted position? How does that compare to the zeiss 25mm at around f8- f11, does anybody have any experiences with that?

Thank you all for your great input to this thread.
 

Photojazz

Member
not really good lighting in the sky, I left polarizer in the car, might have helped a bit. 28 1.4D on D800E: Had a break in the rain, so went down to the quarry lake to shoot a little. But it was just to humid to stay out long.

 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
If you just want it for landscape, the Leica 21-35mm is probably the best lens on a digital sensor. Since it is a modern design, it doesn't have the field curvature that the Leica 28mm has and performs as well, maybe better across the frame. It is also better than all the fixed R lenses in its range. On the D800E it will hit the mirror from about 23mm, but you can zoom to the 24mm setting, go to live view and with the mirror up, shoot in the widest focal lengths.

Here is the 21-35mm in the 21mm setting. What looks like red vignetting, is just the red brick underneath the white paint. This was Guy's lens originally.



Cropped in to show the detail.

Lol I want it back
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I haven't posted on this thread until now for one reason: The OP mentions landscape photography, and this lens, or at least my copy, isn't ideal for that. It's in no way ultimately sharp, and the more modern 28/1.8 AF-S runs circles around it.
Great answer! Speaking for myself, I am tired of searching for "perfection" in optical performance. Crap -- excuse me, aberrations -- we see at 100% in the very corners of our D800 files very often won't even go noticed in a print, and if they do, it often is in a place that doesn't matter to the image at all. Heck, I have pinhole images hung in my office and get as many comments as my optically perfect ones do. My current Nikon 28 is the lowly 17-35/2.8 zoom OR the 24-120 -- neither are what I'd call stellar, but they get used a lot. In fact, they are clearly my two WORST lenses, and just as clearly are both my MOST OFTEN USED lenses. Go figure.
/rant
 
Perfection is spelled P-A-R-A-L-Y-S-I-S, as Winston Churchill said.

Nevertheless, there are different degrees of imperfection, and some crap/aberrations are more annoying than others.

The challenging thing for me with wide angle lenses is they tend to be prone to astygmatism, which reveals itself as smeared detail in the corners. I find this visually jarring. Detail that is symmetrically soft (but soft to the same degree) might not call attention to itself at all.

My most used lens bugs me with astigmatism unless I'm careful about the aperture when I certain kinds of detail in the corners. I often accept a little diffraction in order to get rid of a lot of smearing.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My extreme wide is probaly my most concerned lens to the corners. Right now I have the Leica 19mm but I'm viewing more as a 20 or 21 mm lens. I knew that going in my deep corners will have some trouble. To me that's perfectly fine as its better than both the Zeiss 21 and 18 plus a lot less disortion issues. After that I'm not really stressing over perfect corners but more after the look of the lenses. To me that is more my concern. I do have to work slightly harder on the same project using the various brands of lenses on it but its not a lot of work given these lenses I view as my best solutions. Today I shot the 85 1.8 g lens than added some 135Mm DC lens shots which come up just slightly more yellow but I just balance them out to match. Both lenses are about identical in optical quality which is extremely good. In this case with 28mm the 1.8 is a capable lens but like any lens test it know its traits and work its pluses when shooting. All these years I still test every lens and figure out how it preforms so I know exactly what I have in my hands. As someone that works for pay I owe that to my clients. But I agree corner sharpness is really overrated as really most of the time in a lot of shooting it mostly is not even a factor but having one or two you can count one when needed is just fine for me
 

Photojazz

Member
The 17-35 2.8 was no slouch on my D2X series cameras. I miss that lens, it was always a favorite. I tried to buy a mint one recently, but he backed out at the last minute. I'm not sure how well it will keep up with the demands of the D800E, but I thought it would be fun to try it, and use on my D700 even. I'll keep my eye open later for one. I'm spent right now.
 
Top