Nikon 28mm 2.8 AF vs 18-55 G VR

<p>Sorry in advance if this has been answered already. I did not see anything while searching. I own both of these lenses, the 28mm being a carry over from my film days. I was looking for some feedback from any shooters who use the 28mm 2.8 on a DSLR. I own a D90, and just recently acquired the 18-55 vr, mainly to get my wide angle back. How does it compare to the kit lens, which I keep hearing great things about? Thanks in advance for your feedback.</p>

<p>You could set your 18-55mm to 28mm and test the two and let us know how they compare.</p>

<p>The 18-55 VR is fine wide open, but better stopped down. I'm guessing that 18-55mm@28mm is around f/4 vs the prime.</p>

<p>With the prime you'll have a stop or stop and a half advantage, faster focus, and less vignetting but I don't remember my 18-55 having strong vignetting problems either. I'm guessing here, but 28mm f/4 is probably marginally sharper than the 18-55 VR or it's a toss-up.</p>

<p>Honestly I'd just shelve the 28mm for a FF camera for the convenience of the 18-55 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>As much as I hate the "newspaper shot" tests I ran some tonight. The 18-55 is at 4.8 at 28mm. Shot on a Manfrotto 3001BN, Nikon SB-600, 100 iso using Nikon D80 with Remote Release. The 18-55 VR blew the prime out of the water. So big was the difference that I tested and retested.</p>

<p><img src="http://robertdeanda.com/images/28mm_test.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /></p>

I have read mostly poor reviews of the 28 AF-D, so much so that I ended up getting a the 2.8 AIS version for about $200. This is one of the better MF lenses out there and has performed really well for me. since you're on a D90 you won't meter with the AIS, so you're probably better off sticking with the kit lens for now. alternatively, you could probably sell the 28 AF and get a 24 2.8 AF for roughly the same price.