28mm for D800(e)?

[D&A]

Photojazz, quite some time ago I did a write-up (on Getdpi) of my initial test and impressions of the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 on the D800e. I don't have the link at the moment but a search might find it.

We all should keep in mind that some of the many lenses we're describing that have soft/smeared corners on the D800/E don't necessarily have quite the same degree of softness when used on a lower pixel density DSLR. I mention this as sometimes a lens is described as being soft on the corners, when it's not so much the lens as the senor it's used on. Thats why so many wide angle lenses these days seem to fail what some would consider the ultimate test when used on the D800/e...namely corner sharpness.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Lightleak]

I agree with all of you that it doesn't make sense to look for perfection, but maybe for the best compromise. Of course that compromise will be based on the priorities of the user, for me and evenly spread relative sharpness without random blurry areas are important.
Corner softness /abberation is a reality and I am fine with it. I would gladly sacrifice the fastness (as well as the lack of vignetting) for a good landscape lens. Say something starting at f4 or f5.6. I believe Tim has wished for something similar.

Photojazz, these images look really impressive. I only wish I could look at one in 100% size, because at the size shown I think most of the lenses will shine. I would be very thankful if you could share an example of that combination (d800+24f1.8) at original size and something around f8 - f11. I wouldn't mind if it only shows an ugly street or anything really if it barely resembles something like landscape distance-of-subject-wise.

24mm would be a wonderful focal length. At the moment I think I would even prefer it to 28.

Best regards!

 

[Photojazz]

Lightleak,

If I get a FTP client on this machine, maybe I can pop one up on my server for a day or two. I'll let you know when that happens.

I sent Zenfolio a sizzling message about what they are doing to us as photographers to share our craft. If we cannot show someone an image at original size, no way you can see the detail. I even just tried a crop, what do they do? They base the image on the same screwy idea of blocking the two largest images of the crop!!! That means blocking an image less than 1000 pixels wide.

If you are a Zenfolio customer, please complain as I did.

Doug

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Happened to test the Nikon 28mm 1.8 this morning while doing another lens test. Full image than center crops

 

[D&A]

Although it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges (due obviously to different focal lengths, camera to subject distance etc.) it's interesting to compare (f-stop for f-stop) these latest Nikon 28mm f1.9 shots with similar ones you took with the Leica 19mm.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The Leica 19mm is far better. I have more images to compare and post but the 28 is a little disappointing compared to the 19mm.

Okay here is the upper left crops and these are not too bad. Im more disappointed in the center crops. I shot another scene and the center does not look anything like the Leica 19mm until F8 and the Leica at 2.8. Yea not sure what that is about . I did live view and focused manually but I could feel elements shifting when focusing manually. It was a bit odd because on AF i did a big job with this lens and my results where good not Sigma 35mm 1.4 good but nice.

Maybe I have a weird copy. Seriously I am getting sick and tired of bum lenses that show up at my door and need 3 copies to get a good one.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

F5.6 is respectable.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay this test is pretty much the same framing just moving back for the 28mm. These are at 5.6

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yea the Leica 19mm just smokes it. Which in a way is awesome. I spent a lot of money on the 19mm and I'm thrilled at the results but on the same hand the 28mm should be better here. I dont like hanging my hat on one test but I shot 2 tests this morning one in this scene and the other at the furniture store wall. Same center results.

Why I have not recommended this lens for landscape. PR work okay but its not as critical as some others in this class. Now I will stand corrected if there is a better copy out there. My rant here

Nikon wake the **** up. You can't be sending Pros out the door with **** lenses. I'm tired of going through three just to get one.

Rant off and sorry for my cursing, Im from Jersey its just my vocabulary. LOL

 

[D&A]

Guy Wrote--->>>>"The Leica 19mm is far better. I have more images to compare and post but the 28 is a little disappointing compared to the 19mm."<<<<

That's what I was getting at Guy. Although we're comparing a 19mm lens with a 28mm focal length (hence my comments about comparing apples and oranges), my initial impressions from your earlier postings was that the 19mm was clearly superior to the Nikon both centrally and in the corners. It was quite obvious. Whether it's your particular Nikon sample or not, my gut tells me many samples of Nikon's 28mm f1.9's have weak areas.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Photojazz]

Isn't the Nikon consumer grade priced to begin with? At it's price point, I would say it is. They can call it a G or an L whatever they want, at 700 bucks, you aren't going to get super quality, IMO.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well at 2.8 on a 1.8 lens in the center it should be better. My Sigma 35mm 1.4 at 800 dollars will smoke this. So if Sigma can put out that kind of lens for 800 than Nikon certainly should be able too.

 

[Lightleak]

Nothing better than waking up to a proper lens comparison test, haha!

Indeed the center area comparison is rather disillusioning regarding the performance of the 28mm/1.8g at wider apertures (up to f5,6 maybe even). The 19mm flexes its muscles and the crowds are impressed for a reason. The 28mm @ f8 looks quite good though, and from other photos I have looked at it stays good up to f11 (with only a extremely slight deterioration due to diffraction, which would make it interesting for landscape..). Guy, have you noticed the „smeared“/„blurred“ areas at around 5.6 in some areas of an imagined Doughnut fitting into the frame with the 28mm?

Photojazz, I don't believe there is a direct correlation between price and quality on lenses. My 50mm 1.4G is *very* good on the D800e and it is a very cheap lens. Of course it might not be the same looking at relatively fast and wide lenses, but still.

Personally I had almost decided on the 28/1.8g, but these results are a bit of a bummer as I only need it for landscape/cityscape related subjects, especially with the focus shift you mention. I will try one though maybe next week at a local shop where they agreed to let me have a go at it for a couple of minutes.
„All I need“ is a 24mm/2.8 without issues and the quality of the sigma 35mm. At an affordable price please.

If the new Zeiss line will be as good as promised and features an incredible 24mm, I already see myself selling my old Hasselblad & lenses, the old Rollei, my mountain bike, my left kidney and my soul to get one.

 

[Photojazz]

28 1.4D on D800E, Topaz processing

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I looked at my Sigma test today i shot a little while back of the same scene as the 28mm and the sigma just hammers it as well as my 50 1.4 and to put it in prospective wide open they are very good but when the 35 and 50 at 2.8 its equal to the Leica 19mm at 2.8 and actually they are both really good at F2 exactly what they should be as well. The Nikon I'm afraid is not living up to any of my lenses at pretty much any aperture except maybe F8. Thats not good but again this maybe due to a just a okay copy and I want to run another test on it just to be sure. I got nice results with it at 5.6 and f8 on my big job that looked good but they where not killer good like the Sigma was at the same apertures. Right now Im in the middle of another big project but maybe I can sneak out early in the morning and run a test against the 35 and 28 and see where I am at.

Price BTW has nothing to do with it either. I had a couple 50 1.8 G lenses just to have and they kicked butt at 220 dollars. Sure it had no look to it but it was sharp as hell. My 85 1.8 is every bit as good as its 1.4 brother and my new purchase a 20 year old design 135mm DC lens is a laser.

 

[Photojazz]

points taken on price, it doesn't have to be expensive to be good, it's just most off the time the expensive ones are good, so it sort of conditions us that way I guess.

Rub it in, I miss my 105 and 135 DC lenses, great glass.

Well, I am trying to rectify some of those wrongs, of special glass I let go. Maybe I will get back to a nice 105 and/or 135.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Lol the DC lenses still preform well on these sensors. I'm pretty impressed by the 135.

I should point out lenses that have a look or character regardless of costs may not be the best technical lenses.

 

[Photojazz]

Right, I totally understand what you mean, it's about the character/signature of the lens, and of course, now with more demanding bodies, how they react to those as well, as i am finding out!

Of course some things that are good, stay good, or at least it seems like it! 28 1.4D, love having that back in my bag... not cheap, but worth what I had to pay, even if I did buy an import, not a US lens, and no box. boxes don't take photos though, lenses and cameras do, heh.

 

[Lightleak]

Guy,

while looking at the last two comparison pics I noticed that the focus of the 28mm was probably not on the flower bucket (which is the most prominent part of the image and thus makes the best comparison area). If you look at the logo printed onto the window glass behind one of the curtains on the right that says „Rose Tea Room“, that seems to be really sharp, much more comparable to the same area in the 19mm lens image.

Also, the little patinated copper hook just right above the word „Room“ is oof as well.

So, what do you think - could this be a matter of the smaller depth of field of the 28mm lens combined with a different focus point rather than a bad copy of the lens?

Best regards,

Harald

edit: I am pretty sure the 19mm would still be sharper by quite a bit, but maybe the 28mm flower bucket wouldn't look so lousy.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I just shot a whole new series this morning and review is here. This for sure is focused squarely on the bottom flower pot itself.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/46563-nikon-28mm-1-8-g-vs-sigma-35mm-1-4-art-series.html