28mm: what's people's favourite, and why?

[vieri]

Hello everyone,

when it comes to WA, the 28 to 35mm is a range I like to use a lot in my landscape / fine art work. There is a wonderful thread on the 35mm Sigma going on right now, but it seems to me that there is less love for the wider brother around, so here we are: what is people's favourite 28 mm, and why?

 

[Steen]

There was this thread, primarily about the AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 G

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/38058-got-my-28mm-1-8g-must-have.html

Worth a read as inspiration for your considerations. I think.

 

[robsteve]

I can tell you from first hand experience that the latest 28mm f2.8 Nikkor isn't very suited to landscape. It is sharp enough in the middle, but huge field curvature, so the edges are not in focus.

The Leica 28mm f2.8 is very good, but still has a bit of field curvature.

The modern zooms made for a flat digital sensor may be a better choice.

 

[vieri]

There was this thread, primarily about the AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 G

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/38058-got-my-28mm-1-8g-must-have.html

Worth a read as inspiration for your considerations. I think.

Thank you Steen, good read - though mostly Nikkor-centric It seems that the Zeiss 28 doesn't have many followers here... I wasn't much impressed by the landscape qualities of the lens from Tim's samples at the beginning of the thread, it seems to me more a PJ-oriented optic. Will look into it some more though...

I can tell you from first hand experience that the latest 28mm f2.8 Nikkor isn't very suited to landscape. It is sharp enough in the middle, but huge field curvature, so the edges are not in focus.

The Leica 28mm f2.8 is very good, but still has a bit of field curvature.

The modern zooms made for a flat digital sensor may be a better choice.

Hello Rob, thank you very much, this is exactly the info I need - seems to reinforce my opinion that Nikon was thinking more to PJs than Landscape guys when they developed this... The modern zooms are good, but huge and a prime - if well developed - might still have some advantages over a zoom when it comes down to IQ... or not, as it seems it were for the Nikkor :ROTFL:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

When I was young, 28mm was the widest I had, and I didn't find it very interesting. For some reason, I have bought 3 manual focus 28mm lenses the last couple of years, without using them much, but now I'm giving them a chance.

The latest acqusition is a Nikkor 28mm f/2.0 AIS. Apart from being a lovely lens, the rendering is very pleasing to my eyes. When it comes to sharpness and contrast, here is what I see from a very informal as well as unscientific test I did this morning on a D700 that somehow found its way in my door last night:

f/2.0: Adequate centre sharpness and contrast. Edges and corners are low contrast and soft.
f/2.8: Centre becomes very good, while edges and corners are acceptable, but still low contrast.
f/4.0: Centre is as sharp and detailed as it gets on a 12MP camera. Edges and corners are very good too.
f/5.6: Totally sharp and contrasty across the frame.
f/8.0: No improvements that I can see vs. f/5.6, and the rendering seems more pleasing at 5.6.

At least with my copy, there seems to be some very slight CA in high contrast areas that are in focus. With the D700, it's hardly visible, but with a D800, the situation would probably change for the worse. The test was done on a cityscape, and I haven't tried it for OOF rendering yet.

I think I paid around $300 for my copy which is in mint condition and came with both caps as well as a lens hood. Not a super bargain, but much cheaper than a Zeiss or the new AF-S lens.

 

[Jack]

Easy answer is the 28/1.8G. Howeverbutt, I really like the versatility of the older 17-35 zoom -- about the same total size, as sharp or sharper in the central 2/3 across the zoom range, but looses out in the extreme corners. It's also gives up a stop+. For my needs, I'll take the added versatility of having 17, 21, 24 and 35 focals also available and give up the stop and better extreme corners over the fixed 28 on most days.

 

[D&A]

Easy answer is the 28/1.8G. Howeverbutt, I really like the versatility of the older 17-35 zoom -- about the same total size, as sharp or sharper in the central 2/3 across the zoom range, but looses out in the extreme corners. It's also gives up a stop+. For my needs, I'll take the added versatility of having 17, 21, 24 and 35 focals also available and give up the stop and better extreme corners over the fixed 28 on most days.

+1! That's also why I've been an advocate of the venerable 17-35mm f2.8 (predicated on finding a good sample, which many aren't). It even does well on the D800 but as Jack pointed out, the edge/sides especially at the more open apertures are weak but it's size and versatility are a big plus.

My favorite 28mm was the AF-D 28mm f1.4. Few samples of this lens would probably rate as spectacular but when a good one was found, it's was heavenly. Most who ended up with a so-so sample, so they never experienced the potential of this lens. Still it's a bit weak at f1.4 and f1.8

It's not so much the absolute sharpness of this lens...but it's had a look that was very appealing and it drew an image in a very attractive way.

Technically wise, there are of course better performing 28mm.

Dave (D&A)

 

[JoelM]

Consider the old 25-50mm zoom. I am constantly impressed by this very underrated lens.

Joel

 

[jsf]

I use the 17-35 on the d800e and d700, at f/8 it is sharp corner to corner at 28mm. It is such a versatile lens and it's resolution is so high in the center at any f/stop that I use the lens most of the time. When I am doing serious work I use three lenses most of the time. The 17-35, 55mm micro and an old 300mm f/4. When I am travelling I substitute an old 200mm f/4 for the 300mm, a lot less weight and bulk. Joe

 

[vieri]

Thank you guys! So far, I see a lot of love for the 17-35, not much love for the 28 f1.8G, one mention for the oldie (but still in production) 20 AI-s and 25-50 zoom.

Since I'd stay with a prime for now, I wonder what is the collective wisdom on the Zeiss, Voigtlander and - dare I say - Schneider T-S 28mm? Any users of any of these lenses out there?

 

[tashley]

Vieri, I haven't tried the primes you mention there but I have heard that the Schneider TS isn't excellent. But I do have an answer, which is that the 28mm setting on my 24-70 has less field curvature, especially at f5.6, than the 28mm F1.8G and that means that it is not only sharp enough to the edges (particularly at F8) but also doesn't have any strange mid-filed weaknesses of note. So though you give up some light weight, some extra speed and the very nice 'look' of the F1.8 lens wide open, and the central area is not quite as Zeissy-sharp, you get a very good consistent result across the frame. At the moment therefore I use this lens for most wide landscape (28/35) in preference to any primes I have, just because it is better: more consistent, less fussy, more reliable, less tricky.... better than any copy of the famous Siggy 35 Art I've had, too.

 

[vieri]

Tim, thanks for the heads up on the 24-70, which for some reason is a lens that I owned for a very short time and immediately sold (I kinda forgot why, too!), and never warmed to... it makes a lot of sense in fact, it would double nicely for 35 / 50 as well even if I hear that both at 24 and at 70 is not so great. So you gave up to the Siggy 35 in the end... too bad that they cannot get their QC right, it looked as that when it works it's great, except it quite doesn't! :wtf:

 

[tashley]

My 24-70 is weak at the sides at 24 but that is field curvature, so it actually suits some subjects... But at 70 it's actually really pretty good! I am damned surprised: I expected not to like this lens but it is really seriously useful!

 

[vieri]

Hmm it seems I will have to seriously (re)consider it, then... You know, after all these new zoom are really good, and the reason to use primes is more character than anything else; otherwise, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 (in either flavour, f2.8 or f4) with a Lee SW filter for the 14-24 and regular filters for others, would be about perfect.

On the other hand, I travel with 14-24, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 135 f2 or 70-200 f4. More or less same weight, some more character but definitely less practical...

 

[tashley]

I am coming rapidly to the same opinion as you Vieri: and for most straight landscape I actually don't want a look lens, just a predictable field of focus. I've said it before but if someone made a good wide (say 24mm but I'd accept up to 35 if it was really good) with a maximum aperture of f5.6 (so that there were no compromises to field curvature in order to get a fast maximum aperture) then I'd buy it in a flash.... but for now my travel kit, and one with which I think i can get really great results, will be 24-70 f2.8 with 70-200 F4 (I LOVE that lens) with Samyang 14 and Nikon 28 1.8G because it is so small and light and gives me a low light fast lens with a really nice look wide open...

 

[Jack]

IMHO only: perfectly sharp extreme corners in a landscape image are mostly over-rated and definitely over-sought-after. Flamesuit donned

 

[tashley]

No suit needed: soft corners I can live with, easily; blurry edges I simply hate!

 

[D&A]

No suit needed: soft corners I can live with, easily; blurry edges I simply hate!

In some ways I quite agree. Soft corners, whether they are due to the optical design and performance of a lens or possibly interaction with the extreme pixels and their design on a given density packed high resolution sensor are generally and specifically easier to deal with than bluffy, smeared corners.

With soft corners, if their sharpness does become important to a particular image, they can often be isolated and additionally sharpened to a degree and matched (blended in) to look natural to the adjacent part of the image. Conversely, smeared blurry corners look exactly like "smeared blurry corners" and no amount of post processing is going to return that part of the image to look in it's natural state....whether it be a brick facade or a well defined structure or recognizable element.

As a general rule, blurry smeared corners often indicate optical misalignment, where soft corners are often attributed to resolution falloff of the lens in general...although with so many different sensor designs (specifically their pixels with regards to pixel density and micro-lens design), these blurry corners may have their origins (or part thereof) due to lens/sensor interaction.

With that said Jack is "right" for the most part....for these blurry corners to be seen or have a degrading impact on the image (beside pixel peeping at greater than 50%), a substantial enlargement/print has to be made or at the very least the image initially cropped significantly to reveal the details of one of those corners.

EDIT #1 : As for the importance of these blurry corners I am reminded of the example of an extraordinarily beautiful "classic car" that has less than perfect front fenders. If the fender's paint is simply duller than the rest of the car, some high gloss, somewhat abrasive car polish might help it blend in with the rest of the car. It may be a little destructive but it will look better and more natural to almost everyone, even discerning connoisseurs, as opposed to doing nothing. If the car instead had small dents in the fender, no amount of polish will help. How important are these dents? To the owner, and "fender peepers"...very! To the general public or those who admire the entire car for it's outstanding beauty and look at it as a whole, the fenders themselves are hardly noticed, if that....LOL!

EDIT #2: I can just see it now. Jack and Tim are involved in a small fender-bender car accident. Tim says "Jack look, just look what you did to my beautiful car's fenders, their dented! See how distorted they are? I can't stand the way they look!". Jack replies "Tim, take it easy, it's only the fenders...and besides, fenders are highly overrated anyway" :ROTFL:

Dave (D&A)

 

[vieri]

I definitely agree on the soft vs blurry/smeared corners & edges: soft is fine if it is a graceful and pleasant softening, sort of a focus-falloff. Blurry and smeared, on the other end, looks unnatural and to me is the sign of poor performance of an optic, which is not acceptable for optics marketed as first class, ultimate IQ, etc etc and with a price tag to match.

Ideally, we should have perfect optics with perfectly sharp corners and edges and if and when we want soft corners and edges for aesthetic purposes we always can do that in PP or by selecting our point of focus and apertures accordingly... but then again, this is not quite an ideal world...

 

[paulraphael]

"Blurry and smeared" usually just means astigmatism. There's more blur in one direction than the other, so the blur is assymetrical. Usually it looks as if the detail is smeared out toward the corners.

On some lenses the astigmatism is in the opposite direction, and it looks as if the detail was smeared in a circular motion around the axis. Some people like this look in some circumstances.

This will usually correspond with big divergence of dotted and solid lines on an MTF chart. Although I've never seen a trustworthy looking chart from one of the Japanese lens companies.

I find smear hard to look at in general. There's something jarring about it, like my eyes are fighting to bring the detail into focus (in a way that they don't if the blur is symmetrical).

Sharpening algorithms often make the smear look worse.