28mm 2.8 AF (HELP!!)

[trex1]

I picked up a Nikon 28mm Af last night, quite pleased with myself, and then

found out it is the worst lens ever made by Nikon. I needed a standard lens for

my D70. I have a nice 35 ais, but it will not meter, and is a bitch to focus, so

this looked good. It cost about 80 bucks. I would have been happy with it, but I

found out from you guys that it is the lens equivalent of the scum of the earth,

with the dreaded E series DNA.... I did put a bid of 130 bucks on the redeemed D

series version on Ebay, but I missed winnig it by 50 cents, brand new and all.

 

Anyway, my question is, just how bad is this lens, and how can I tell how awful

it is? Surely on a digital camera where you only use the central area, it ought

to be ok, right? Should I dump it back on Ebay, or just keep it and use it as a

42mm normal on my D70.

[ken dennis]

You can sell it to me if your not happy with it!

 

Ken.

[NetR]

Of course it will be OK. One of the problems with it is that it gets compared against the 28mm f2.8 AIS, which is possibly the sharpest lens Nikon ever made. That is, it is not "absolutely" bad, just "relatively" bad. Anyway, with digital it won't cost you anything to bang off a few shots of a brick wall or similar and check them on your screen.

[leslie_cheung]

Regardless of optic quality, the 28mm f2.8 doesn't get my vote. Either go a little longer

35mm f2 or 30mm 1.4 (2 stops) sigma and gain an extra stop or go 20/24mm 2.8 to get

wider FOV.

[work-page]

Why should you care what we think of this particular implementation of the 28? Why not shoot a couple of pictures with it and see how it works for you?

 

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, you've experienced yourself (the 35-70/2.8 story comes to mind) that sample variation may play a much bigger role in whether a lens is good or bad than lens design itself.

[r_johnston]

TOO MUCH attention is paid to equipment, instead of images or knowledge about how to use it... Ive seen some of the most impressive pictures ever, with cheap cameras, and lenses. One years ago was of a young girl in a Boston Photo Club contest. It took first prize. The pose perfect, with the head tilted, holding a branch of pussy willows against her cheek.... She had beautiful long tapering fingers placed right in the center of interest. The title was: The Spring of Life...

 

Taken with a used camera that cost $25.00 Everyone in the Club had a better, much more expensive camera, but HE won first prize and everyone voted for him.

 

Go out and use the lens, Id recommend you use it at least two months before making any decision... Then, if you want a different one, go for it.

[bruno]

I had the same concerns, about FOV of 28mm on digital, but I have to say that I'm quite pleased with it. I wouldn't say that is simply translates to 42mm, because the DOF is still the one of a 28mm. Just as much as a 80mm lens on 6x6 is very different from a 50mm on 35mm film, although they are both "standard".

 

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=410563696&size=o

 

This was the AF-D version, though.

[hayward]

Shoot with it and see what you think. It is well worth $80.

[mawz]

I actually use the Series E 28/2.8, the original AF version is the Series E lens with CRC added.

 

It doesn't compare to the AI-S version, which is one of the best 28's ever made. but it's competent. The AF-D is better, but not by all that much.

 

Most of the 28 AF's issues will only show themselves on 35mm anyways, so enjoy the good centre of the image on DX format, where the 28/2.8 AF is quite good.

[flaviosganzerla]

I have one, had the same question you have, had it as my favorite lens, and now I'm trying to sell. On my D70s it isn't as good as with my film camera, but I found the 24mm f/2.8D AF has the same 'problems', so...

 

Do some tests and post pictures and crops here to see if the lens is doing at least OK, ok!?

[roland_vink]

"I actually use the Series E 28/2.8, the original AF version is the Series E lens with CRC added."

 

The series-E 28/2.8 has a simple 5-element optic, which has a reputation of being one of the poorer lenses in Nikon's lineup. At medium apertures, from f5.6 - f11 its quite decent, and even better on the DX format as it only captures the central sweet spot.

 

The early AF 28/2.8 versions have the same optics as the series-E lens. Coatings are better so contrast and color rendition are good. None of these lenses have CRC.

 

The AF-D version has a new 6-element optical design, still without CRC. It's an improvement on the older lens, but still not as good as the older AIS version. The AIS 28/2.8 is supurb, and 8-element design with CRC, but if you find the 35 AIS unsuitable, the 28 won't help.

 

As for "how bad" your lens is, it depends on which version you have. Even if you have a so-called bad version, it would be worth taking a few pictures and judging for yourself instead of letting others tell you. If you are unhappy with the results and want a fast standard lens for your D70, I know many who like the AF 35/2.

[trex1]

Thanks for all the comments. Bruno, your shot looks sharp to me. I actually took the camera out and about in Tokyo yesterday and fired off about 60 shots, and printed the lot. The lens actually seems plenty sharp to me, but that was not in low light wide open, which is the real test of a lens. What does the D version bring to the table that makes it any better, and why do you suppose the nikon engineers left out CRC this time?

[bruno]

Darius, I think you are worrying too much about equipment.