Which Nikkor is best at 28mm on D800/E

[joel_b.1]

<p>I like to shoot architectural interiors at around 28mm. I like everything to be in focus. I've read a lot about the lenses below, but most of the comparisons I read are about the lens's extremes: How they perform wide open or stopped way down, how zooms perform on the longest or shortest ends, etc. I'm interested in how these lenses perform at their ideal apertures -- 5.6 or 7.1 or 8.</p>

<p>Here are a few examples of what I like to do. http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelbrouwer/sets/72157628794983973.</p>

<p>Those were taken with my old 7D and 17-55, mostly at focal lengths from 17-24 (28-35 equivalent), before I made my switch to "the dark side." </p>

<p>What would be your 28mm choice to get edge-to-edge sharpness and minimal or easily correctable distortion?</p>

<p>A) Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR<br>

B) Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED<br>

C) Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G<br>

D) Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS Manual Focus<br>

E) Other</p>

<p>I considered the 24mm PCE tilt-shift lens, but that is very expensive, and it also seems like many people are dissatisfied with its performance on the D800/E.</p>

<p>I thank you for any of your thoughts. I own B and D already, so anyone voting for either of those wins additional thanks from the family bookkeeper.</p>

<p> </p>

<h1> </h1>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the 14-24 is probably your best option quality-wise for wide angle interior shots. You can just crop to 28mm FOV if you need to, and you can get "shifted" images by simply shooting wider and cropping. The quality is excellent and you can shoot at wide apertures when needed.</p>

<p>The 24 PC-E is a nice lens but (stop down to f/8-11) I haven't used it on a D800 yet. I think the complaints come from people whose quality expectations come from view camera / medium format digital use. I saw some examples of field curvature in outdoor architectural shots at very long distances (large buildings) but I usually don't shoot from that far away. On a D3X it has been working very well, but I often shoot narrow streets with it and have my focus distance at a few meters instead of 50+m. I can understand the concern regards to its price. A lens with improved optics (maybe with superrotator-like independent movements) would no doubt have an increased price. </p>

<p>However, my recommendation is the 14-24. </p>

[joel_b.1]

<p>Thank you, Ilkka. Of course I am aware of the 14-24 and its strong reputation. I left it off the list because I don't need 2.8; I don't need 14mm; I'd prefer not to have to lug the monster around; and I'd prefer to spend 1000 rather than 2000. For those reasons, I had thought that if I was going to get a zoom for this, as opposed to a prime, I'd get the 16-35. But I am sure that the 14-24 is excellent, and I thank you for your response.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I have no a direct experience with 16-35 but I use or used to own the other options. IMHO your best option is the new 28/1.8 AF-S G if you need sharpness across the frame at f5.6... f8. This is my last acquisition and does amaze me with every day in terms of optical quality.</p>

[joel_b.1]

<p>Thank you, Mihai. It does seem like that lens is providing very good results for people and I am very tempted by it.<br>

I would love to see a comparison between the new 28mm 1.8 and the 28mm 2.8 ais. I wonder if the older lens still holds up on the D800/E.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>All of the lenses you list should give excellent sharpness across the entire frame when stopped down. Based on your budget, choice C is probably the best.</p>

[rconey]

<p>Since you own the 24-70 f2.8 (which is one of my very best lenses) I am curious what you find lacking with it. You can shoot wider than 28 and crop or do perspective control. My only complaint about it is that it is a brick. for in-town work that should not be such a problem. For backpacking I finally realized that is the price I pay since about 60-70% of my landscapes can be done with that lens. So, is there a special purpose that needs a different lens? </p>

[joel_b.1]

<p>Robert, like you I find nothing lacking with the 24-70 aside from its size and weight, and I'd be very glad to hear that it's just as good or better at 28 than the 16-35 at 28 or the new 28 prime. I was just asking if people think that is in fact the case. Thank you for your response.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Sorry, I missed that you already own the 24-70mm. If weight and size is an issue, choice C is probably the best one. Otherwise, you likely already have <em>the right stuff.</em></p>

[pat_warner]

<p>Tho you might think <a href="http://patwarner.com/images/old_rock.jpg">this pix</a> has nothing to do with interiors, it might.<br />Key: The panorama.<br />Shot with the 45 PC-E, just a few feet away, clear and straight from head to toe. Now in your case, to keep stuff straight and not spend money:<br />Use the 28 with MF in portrait.<br />Tune in the nodal point, maybe shoot at f/8 and make a 3-5 pane pano. With average software you'll get your money's worth.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>You might also consider the AF-S 17-35/2.8D. IIRC, it has virtually no geometric distortion at 28mm. All of the primes with have some curvature.</p>

<p>Also, (not kidding here), take a look at the new 24-85/f3.5-4.5G-VR. My initial tests have shown some remarkable performance in the mid apertures.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Joel, 28/2.8 AI-S is a great lens but it was optimized for close subjects... IMHO a much better option for you is the 28/2 AI-S a lens that I appreciate very much. Anyhow I did not did any scientific test to see the corners at f5.6... f8 on D800 but the center sharpness is very good. But, again, for a pro use, if you check the diagrams on photozone you'll see that 28/1.8 AF-S is the most reliable option.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I can only speak to the 28mm manual focus Ais. I acquired one about 3 years ago and it is one of my most frequently used lenses these days. It is wonderfully sharp, exceptionally so when stopped down. I've used it on my D300, D100, and my film bodies. Although others may be more versatile, I really happen to like this lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A couple of weeks ago, I ran a bunch of tested using both the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and 28mm/f1.8 AF-S on both the D800 and D800E to capture architecture to compare the two bodies. At f5.6, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the 24-70 @ 28mm and the 28mm/f1.8. There also isn't much difference between the D800 and D800E.</p>

<p>For your purpose, since you already have the 24-70mm/f2.8, I would just use that lens. At f5.6 to f8, you are not going to see a whole lot of differences among lenses unless you are using one that is particularly bad.</p>

<p>If you are to buy another lens for architecture and building interior, I would get the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E for its tilt/shift capability. I have tested that lens on the D3X and D800, and I think it is excellent. I also read some negative comments on that lens from someone who apparently knows what he is talking about; I am still puzzled why his experience is so different from mine. But for what you are doing, you might as well use a lens that you already have.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p> Nikkor 28mm f/2.0 AIS Manual Focus</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Joel - those library shots are great. Since you seem to be a tripod/careful-composition kind of photographer, have you looked at the old 28mm PC? </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>28mm Schneider Super Angulon. Once you use that, no other 28mm will do.</p>

<p>That aside, I'm dying to see the Voigtlander 28mm f2.8 SL II that's supposed to be out any day now. IR has some sample pics...</p>

<p>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/lens_review/20120524_534810.html</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'll second the recommendation to consider a 28mm f/3.5 PC-Nikkor. They're not too expensive and you'd be able to keep your verticals straight without using Photoshop. There's a slight colour fringing issue when shifted, but then so is there with the 24mm PC-E Nikkor. I think you'll find the corners a bit soft with any of the other 28mm primes, especially the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S MF Nikkor.</p>

[joel_b.1]

<p >Thank you to one and all. These are interesting suggestions and observations, giving much food for thought. The 28mm PC idea certainly sounds like a fun and relatively inexpensive way to experiment with shift. My D800E arrived today and I did a couple quick tests with the 20/2.8D, the 28/2.8ais, and the 24-70/2.8G. Should you care to have a look at the NEFs, they are accessible here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sabggzoz9rmwxje/hYVIt9a0rl. I apologize for the wide variety of exposure levels; the sun was in and out behind the clouds. The 20 was disappointing in terms of sharpness and chromatic aberration, but Lightroom does a very nice job with the CA, at least. The 28ais held up very well, I thought, both in the corners and the center, but the 24-70, as many of you predicted, was better at 28 than the 28ais prime. Something in me doesn't want to believe a zoom can be sharper than a prime, but there it is. I'd also like to mention -- even though it means veering off topic for this thread -- that I noticed obvious moire in the third (and fourth) exposures I made with this camera! Check out the upstairs shutters on the building to the left in both of the 28ais exposures. I wasn't even looking for it, it just jumped out at me. I've heard so many people say that moire isn't a real issue, but there it is. Interestingly, from the same position, the 20mm prime creates no moire, and the 24-70 does create it, but in a much subtler way.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Joel, thanks for sharing those NEF files. It's good to see the incredible detail that the D800E can give "first hand". Also a bit frustrating how slowly Capture NX2 renders those images.<br /> Also, congratulations on finding the exact slat spacing, subject distance and focal length to use to get an interference pattern on the D800E with those window shutters. With that luck you should buy a lottery ticket!</p>

<p>Sorry to mention it, but it looks like your Ai-S 28mm lens might have a decentring or tilted focal-plane issue Joel. There's a strangely out-of-focus area to the right of centre of frame, where that power line pole is. The top of the pole and trees beyond are much fuzzier than it seems they should be, while the brickwork to the left of frame is incredibly sharp.</p>

<p>BTW, I think a lot of posters missed the point where you said the PC-E 24mm was too expensive, since a fair few of the recommended lenses are just as costly.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Hi again Joel. Further to what I was saying about NX2: I opened the files in Capture One, which had no problem with the D800E NEFs and didn't need updating! It rendered the images a lot quicker from their blocky previews and made a much better job of sharpness and (IMHO) colour. The definition in Capture One was so much better that I was able to see that those shutters have a decorative Chinese lattice design, and not the simple Venetian slats I initially thought.<br>

Below is a side-by-side comparison of the output of Capture NX2 and Capture One. To further my disappointment with NX2, it crashed 3 times while trying to save the little crop as a TIFF file. In the end I had to save the whole image and crop it down in GIMP.</p>

<p>So if you want to get the ultimate in definition from your D800E and lenses, you might want to consider investing in Capture One.</p>

<p>PS to Nikon. If Phase One can do it - why can't you?</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>PS to Nikon. If Phase One can do it - why can't you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never buy that kind of reasoning. Nikon is mainly a camera and lens company (and semiconductor stepper company also, but that is the part of their business most of us photographers are less familiar with). However, Nikon's software, to put it politely, is not their strength. If you expect Nikon to match the best in every single area, it it simply not realistic. And that is why I use Nikon cameras and lenses but mostly not Nikon software.</p>

<p>Earlier I was reading a new blog on Nikon D800E moire. Their example is a bit similar to Joel's. In these cases, the moire happens to such tiny areas in the frame that I am less concerned about. And BTW, the author over there concludes that Nikon Capture NX2 does an excellent job in moire correction: <a href="http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/7/d800e-and-moir-what-pp-gets-rid-of-it-best">http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/7/d800e-and-moir-what-pp-gets-rid-of-it-best</a></p>

<p>Regardless, I prefer Adobe software, but that is another topic.</p>

[joel_b.1]

<p>Joe, Thanks for pointing out that anomaly with the 28mm. I'll take a closer look at that. Hadn't ever noticed it before.</p>

<p>I am a Lightroom person. I love it, I've never used NX2 or Capture 1, and I'd really rather not add another program to my workflow. It took my iMac and LR a fair amount of time to import those NEFs and render 1:1 previews, yes. But that's not really a concern for me, since I am an amateur, and I don't shoot thousands or even hundreds of frames at a time. It's easy enough for me to set the computer to the task, go do something else for a while, and come back when the files are "cooked." It's still a lot faster than waiting for the lab to send your film back!</p>

<p>Shun, that Tim Ashley post is very interesting. It seems that window shutters are the go-to subject to excite D800E moire! I had the same experience he did with the LR moire removal brush. I could get the false color to go away, but the pattern was still there, and sharpening had the effect of sharpening the pattern, too. Not so good.</p>

<p>I think the best way to deal with the 800E moire is to avoid it in the first place, which I don't think will be that hard. If I'm setting up a shot with potentially moire-inducing objects in the frame, I'll be sure to make exposures from a few slightly different angles, at slightly different distances, as insurance. That seems to me an easier strategy than trying to hunt for moire on the LCD, and <em>much</em> easier than trying to fix the moire in post.</p>

<p>I fear I should have begun a new thread with those NEFs, since we are no longer talking about 28mm lens choices.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Joel, on the topic of moire, I received an e-mail from Thom Hogan related to my D800/D800E comparison: <a href="../equipment/nikon/D800/d800-vs-d800e-which-to-choose/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D800/d800-vs-d800e-which-to-choose/</a><br>

Hogan thinks cityscapes is prone to moire issues, especially objects such as screen doors. I haven't experienced that much myself. If these examples are typical, perhaps I simply miss them as the areas affected are very small.<br>

And moire can happen on both the D800 and D800E alike. Just because one gets a D800 does not means that you are home free. I have experienced some false color issues on gull feather from D800 (non E) images, similar to those I showed in the article from the D800E.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm not expecting Nikon to produce the "best" all round software Shun, but I do expect them to produce or commission software that gets somewhere close to the best results from their own cameras. Software isn't the core business of Phase One either remember. It also seems very strange that some raw converters can handle almost any type of raw file that's thrown at them, while others like NX2 and ACR, are having to have constant updates whenever a new camera comes along.</p>

<p>It looks as if Nikon are diversifying by adding a software wing to their enterprises with the separately branded Nik Software, and it's not unreasonable to expect their products to work reliably without crashing and be competitive on quality and speed. Especially since Capture NX2 costs about the same as the full RRP of Lightroom, and about twice as much as the street price of PS Elements.</p>