Nikkor 28mm f1.4D - sharpness problem?

Hello all,

Just bougth the aforementioned lense, and it is very soft pn 1.4

 

From the reviews I read people feedback that this lense excells in sharpness wide oen.

 

I am trying it on D7000, and it is very soft at 1.4, at bigger apps it it also not as sharp as my 35 1.8 DX.

 

D7000 AF fine tune doesnt help - anyone has this issue on his lense?

 

Maybe somebody cn send me the pic done b this lense at 1.4 on DX showing this famous sharness everybody taling about?

 

 

Thanks in advance,

 

David.

<p>Whose review have you been reading? According to Bjorn Rorslett, the 28mm/f1.4 AF-D is soft wide open, and he has tested three different samples: <a href="00MFh1">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00MFh1</a><br>

You seem to be merely confirming his observation.</p>

<p>Bjorn Rorslett is among the most respected Nikon lens experts around. I am far less experience than he is, but among leses both he and I have used, I share his experience most of the time with a few occasional disagreements.</p>

Actually, I was referring to Ken Rockwells review in which he claims this lense is dead sharp on 1.4

<p>No wonder.</p>

<p>A lens wide open is also only as sharp as it's focus plane is flat. Consider that, too. The area that is actually in focus is very very thin, even on that 28mm lens.</p>

<p>What are you photographing? That might matter?</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that Rockwell is kind of an entertainment web site, not the best source for scientific information. Sometimes he's spot on, but it's hard to predict when he's not. That's what Shun means.</p>

<p>Hi Peter, Thanks for answering.<br>

Actually I've made 41 photos of brass coin (which is flat enough i guess) at 1.4 , each photo for its own value of D7000 AF Fine tune option, and the results are very dissapoinitig.<br>

There is no value which gives sharp picture, even in comparison to plasticy 35 1.8DX wide open!</p>

<p>Is that possible that this lense will behave better on FX than on DX?</p>

<p>Dave, are you shooting macros of some coin? It is very difficult to keep the camera (its sensor) completely aligned with the surface of the coin. If you are after macro images, definitely get a dedicated macro lens such as the 105mm/f2.8, 60mm/f2.8. The latest 40mm/f2.8 DX AF-S Micro is an excellent lens but maybe too short for photographing coins.</p>

<p>The plastic construction of a lot of modern lenses is somewhat deceptive. Except for the ones with a plastic mount, the plastic barrel are typically good enough and the optical performance is easily better than a lot of the older lenses. The main issue with the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S is chromatic aberration; its sharpness is excellent.</p>

<p>And then your D7000 is extremely demanding on lens quality. It should surprise no one that an f1.4 lens does not perform very well on it, especially if you are shooting near macro distances. I would use a smaller aperture to gain some depth of field.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun.</p>

<p>I am not considering this lens to be my macro, I have Sigma 150 Macro for this purpose.<br>

The only reason I was shooting coin is in order to get the object as flat as possible.<br>

Do you think the 1.4 bechaviuour could be better while shooting something at longer distances?</p>

<p>If so , how much longer? Considering infinity or just a few feet?</p>

<p>Thanks again for your time.</p>

 

 

<p>Additional question as a part of this thread:</p>

<p>Because Nikkor 28 1.4 is considered as very rare lense, I can easily sell it and get the newest Nikkor 24 1.4 AF-S instead.<br>

Do you think this lense will fulfill my very high expectations for sharpness while shooting at 1.4 on D7000?</p>

<p>Maybe someone has photos shot on 1.4 using this lense?</p>

<p>Thanks. </p>

 

 

<p>Dave,<br>

Yes, it's not unlikely very close up the lens will perform worse. Normal (non-macro) lenses are seldom optimal near their minimal focus distance. However, I feel there might be 2 sides here: fast lenses tend to be softer (and/or lower contrast) wide open, and what your expectation is of such a lens. Maybe you're just hoping for too much. If you'd post a photo of what you consider very soft, that might really help.<br>

The 24 f/1.4 has a better reputation, but as said above, it may not solve what you want. And frankly, the difference between 24 and 28 is quite noticeable, also on DX; to me these 2 focal lengths are sufficiently different.</p>

<p>Most people spending 24 f/1.4 money will be using it on FX cameras. Either way, can't help, my budget unfortunately does not stretch this far....</p>

<p>Dave, the 28/1.4 is not a macro nor a flat-field lens. The field curvature imposed on a flat object is <em>always </em>going to yield unsharp results, particularly wide open. Odds are your lens is just fine.</p>

<p>You should test it in real-world conditions, not in close-up flat-field work, neither of which is the kind of photography the lens is designed for.</p>

<p>You may find that for your purposes, the lens works well, but your test doesn't reflect your purpose, nor the lens's.</p>

<p>Luis G has hit it spot on. You are testing the lens in a "absolute worst case scenario" condition. Up close at minimum focus, most lenses that are not specifically designed as flat-field macro lenses will not yield bitingly sharp focus across the entire image plane due to field curvature. With a retrofocus f/1.4 wide-angle lens at maximum aperture and a completely flat subject, I would not expect sharp results corner to corner no matter how expensive the optic. Even the simple 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 designs show some field curvature when shot wide open at minimum focus.</p>

<p>Shoot a real life subject at a more realistic magnification and you will probably see much better results.</p>

<p>OK guys, following your suggestion, I take a shot of my table souvenir cat from distance of about 1.5 m, 3 times with following conditions:<br>

D7000, ISO 1000, NO FLASH</p>

<p>First 2 pics on the left taken from the same place, at third one I moved a little bit...<br>

First of all, 28 1.4@ 1.4 does look much better now:)<br>

Second, I think 28 1.4@1.8 is slightly sharper now than 35 1.8@1.8, what do you think?<br>

Third, I am still not happy with sharpness of 28 1.4@1.4. Can it be better? Can it be dead sharp???</p>

<p>Thanks you all:)</p>

<div></div>

<p>It's still not a real-world example of something you would shoot with this lens, is it.</p>

<p>I thought to photo people in the lo0w light, so I think this time, i am much closer to the real world one:)</p>

<p>One more thing - shots of 28 1.4 (both 1.4 and 1.8) were shot on +6 AF Fine tune, when I focused on cats nose. Maybe my fine tuning setting are not correct for this lense? Can you recognize here any back/ front focus issues?</p>

<p>Thanks again:)</p>

<p>I have no direct experience with the 28/1.4 but I know that other really fast lenses of its time are not that sharp wide open even on 35mm film / FX. The D7000 accentuates this problem by cropping out half of the image area.</p>

<p>I think you should expect useable quality at f/1.4 and good at f/2-f/2.8 on a D700, if the 28/1.4 is similar to other lenses of its generation. If you want better quality, get the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4. Those lenses can be safely used wide open in many situations, on 12MP FX cameras.</p>

<p>If you're really interested in fast wide angles I would get one or both of the AF-S f/1.4 wides, and an FX camera. It seems pretty wasteful to use the 28/1.4 on a DX camera when there is the 35/1.8 DX available - you don't get that much in return for the extra cost. Try it on a D700 or D3s though, before selling the lens - you might find that you like it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A lens wide open is also only as sharp as it's focus plane is flat. Consider that, too. The area that is actually in focus is very very thin, even on that 28mm lens"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stil,l the 28mm 1.4 wide open should give you a DOF of around 27cm shouldn't it ?</p>

<p>Dave ,<br>

Just wonder, were those "Cat"shots shot from, a tripod ?</p>

 

<p>No, they are all hand held</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Stil,l the 28mm 1.4 wide open should give you a DOF of around 27cm shouldn't it ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on focus distance. Our OP is shooting up close... very close... that makes the depth of field far worse.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No, they are all hand held</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect, this means that whole test is flawed. You are inadvertently testing your ability to hand-hold a camera, you are not testing lens sharpness. Remember this, in almost any situation, the sharpest lens is the one on the sturdy tripod.</p>

<p>You right, the problem is that I cant use tripod right now.</p>

<p>I've done in the past those tests using tripod and the result were very similar to those I've got now.</p>

<p>Do you think the sharpness of my 28 1.4 at 1.4 as it looks now is OK (assuming the same picture was delivered using tripod) or it can be more precise after Nikon lab calibration or something?</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>I think regardless of whether or not it can look better, the cost factor of that lens on DX is such that I think it would be better for FX and even there, I'm not so sure.</p>

<p>Honestly, you yourself are noticing that there isn't much difference between it and the 35mm f1.8 on your D7000. True?</p>

<p>True, but I already own this lens:)<br>

It gives me 1.4 instead of 1.8 of 35 1.8DX...<br>

Any other wide AF lense that you can suggest to buy instead of 28 1.4?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Still the 28mm 1.4 wide open should give you a DOF of around 27cm shouldn't it ?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>At a minimum focus distance of 0.35m and an aperture of f/1.4, the approximate DOF of the 28/1.4 on a DX body is a razor thin 1cm (i.e. less than 1/2")</p>