Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on May 31, 2017, 02:58:54 am
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7860163392/nikon-adds-to-fast-prime-series-with-af-s-nikkor-28mm-f1-4e-ed
Sounds like a wonderful addition to the Nikon line up.
Sharpness at f1.4 seems outstanding as well as the bokeh. Looks like a wide 105mm f1.4. My Otus 28mm f1.4 may hit the second hand market.
http://imgsv.nikon-image.com/products/lens/nikkor/af-s_nikkor_28mm_f14e_ed/img/sample/pic_05_l.jpg
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, seen that this morning and i like what I'm seing. Also, the price seems ok.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-28mm-f%252f1.4e-ed.html?icid=img_en_us:featured_lens:button:3:lens:AF-S_28mm:053117:newprod
-
Wasn't there a 28 f1.4 lens before in Nikon line?
-
Wasn't there a 28 f1.4 lens before in Nikon line?
yes, in 1993 Nikon made the first...
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/723-nikkorafd2814ff
-
Wasn't there a 28 f1.4 lens before in Nikon line?
Yes, one of their most legendary designs along with the 58mm f1.2 Noct.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks kers & Bernard, I thought so. At the time, the lens was around USD 2,000, so it seems the new one is coming cheaper.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4419201855/first-shots-from-new-nikon-28mm-f1-4e-ed
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Regardless of the optical quality of the lens, I never understood the 28mm focal length, especially as a prime.
It's too wide to be a 'normal' lens or for environmental portraits, too wide to be particularly useful for stitching, but not wide enough for the landscapes, interiors amd other things you'd typically use a UWA for. It seems to be a focal length that sits better as a step between 24mm and 35mm on a zoom lens, to be used for exact framing of certain subjects where you can't, or don't want to, move the camera or the subject, rather than something that's particularly useful as a prime in its own right.
-
Regardless of the optical quality of the lens, I never understood the 28mm focal length, especially as a prime.
It's too wide to be a 'normal' lens or for environmental portraits, too wide to be particularly useful for stitching, but not wide enough for the landscapes, interiors amd other things you'd typically use a UWA for. It seems to be a focal length that sits better as a step between 24mm and 35mm on a zoom lens, to be used for exact framing of certain subjects where you can't, or don't want to, move the camera or the subject, rather than something that's particularly useful as a prime in its own right.
Interesting, because that's 100% exactly how I used to feel about the 28mm until I bought the Otus 28mm f1.4... somehow just to try.
And I have to confess that I am a convert. Nowadays, I find the 28mm to be a perfect compromise between wide and long, sitting on a delicate sweet spot where you see the totality of a scene, the environment if you will, but are still able to identify clearly a main subject. The 35mm somehow feels too tight, the 24mm too generic and dillusive in its attempt to encompass too much.
In terms of lens design also, 28mm is pretty much the widest you can use and still get sufficient subject isolation over the background. You have to get way too close with a 24mm f1.4 or wider.
I will most probably sell my excellent Otus and go for the Nikon instead. The ability of recent Nikon bodies (D5/D500 and soon D820/D850) to focus accurately and reliably at f1.4 together with the sharpness differential offered by this new 28mm f1.4 (very sharp where its sharp with a great transition to OoF areas) will provide unique creative opportunities for street photography.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I see it is only 645 grams... half the weight (size) of the Otus...
I have the cheaper f1.8 24mm Nikkor and it is also a lightweight design with very good optics.
AF is spot on even in dim lit situations.
Will try this one to see if 28mm is something for me.
-
Regardless of the optical quality of the lens, I never understood the 28mm focal length, especially as a prime.
I'd guess that these days there are more pictures taken each day with 28mm equivalent lenses than anything and everything else put together.
-
I'd guess that these days there are more pictures taken each day with 28mm equivalent lenses than anything and everything else put together.
Is that the angle of view of the iPhone, or the Samsung Galaxy?
-
I think most if not all phones are there or there abouts aren't they?
-
I think most if not all phones are there or there abouts aren't they?
That's a bit of a different case. For one, they're designed to be able to take a selfie at arm's length. You'd struggle to do that with a 50mm equivalent, unless you had very long arms or a small head. Also, a lot of time, phone photos are heavily cropped, or automatically stitched using phone software, for a more appropriate angle of view. That's usually not a problem for the intended end-use, which is typically web-sized images. But I doubt anyone wants to pay for a full-frame camera and 28mm prime only to crop it to some narrower angle each time. Phone manufacturers can't fit a zoom lens in there, so they seem to have gone for an in-between option which still does the job.
I sometimes wonder, though, why no-one's thought to put a rotating 'disc' of lenses in front of the phone's camera sensor, containing lenses of a number of different focal lengths (e.g. 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm and 200mm equivalents). Just rotate to the one you want before shooting.
-
Mechanical moving parts on a phone represent a possible failure point at the scale needed to keep the phone "fashionably thin". Cost of sensor isn't huge, so putting in two fixed lens/sensor cameras makes more sense, as in iPhone 7 Plus, etc.
-
That's a bit of a different case. For one, they're designed to be able to take a selfie at arm's length. You'd struggle to do that with a 50mm equivalent, unless you had very long arms or a small head. Also, a lot of time, phone photos are heavily cropped, or automatically stitched using phone software, for a more appropriate angle of view. That's usually not a problem for the intended end-use, which is typically web-sized images. But I doubt anyone wants to pay for a full-frame camera and 28mm prime only to crop it to some narrower angle each time. Phone manufacturers can't fit a zoom lens in there, so they seem to have gone for an in-between option which still does the job.
I sometimes wonder, though, why no-one's thought to put a rotating 'disc' of lenses in front of the phone's camera sensor, containing lenses of a number of different focal lengths (e.g. 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm and 200mm equivalents). Just rotate to the one you want before shooting.
My point was that rather than 28mm being oddball it's actually the most used FoV these days.
-
A 28mm Lens would be perfect for environmental portraits if the sensor is 4:3 and 36mm wide. Using the 24mm plus crop leaves bad taste, 28mm looks right but lacks space on the short edge.
-
I see it is only 645 grams... half the weight (size) of the Otus...
I have the cheaper f1.8 24mm Nikkor and it is also a lightweight design with very good optics.
AF is spot on even in dim lit situations.
Will try this one to see if 28mm is something for me.
The question as to focal 'ideal' focal lengths is a personal one.
For me, I purchased the Zeiss Distagon T 15mm ... because of its reputed quality ... but it was too wide, too heavy, and too fragile, so I sold it.
(Before that, I also had the vintage Nikkor 15mm AIS, which was better-built than the Zeiss, but I didn't like the flare/ghosting, so I sold it as well.)
Of contemporary Nikkor 'standard' wide-angle MF lenses, I have enjoyed the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8, and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AIS lenses immensely. All of the AIS lenses are excellent in their own way, and my 50mm f/1.2 AIS is better than any of the Nikkor G AF contemporaries. (See Michael's Article (https://luminous-landscape.com/nikons-jewel). See, also, Nasim Mansurov's Article (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-50mm-f1-2-ai-s).)
However, as both a private investigator, and a nature photographer, the 28mm Nikkor gets the most use, by far, of the 3 'wide' focal lengths I carry. (I never bought the Nikkor 24mm AIS because it isn't as good.)
While I enjoy the tactile pleasure of MF lenses, this new Nikkor 28mm f/1.4E AF-S ED is extremely interesting to me. The only thing I don't like is the change in its closest focusing distance (.7 ft with the AIS vs. .92 with the new, cutting-edge AF design), but everything else is perfect.
To me, 28mm is wide enough to be wide, yet close enough to see detail. While I may not be a professional photographer, in the sense most of you are accustomed to, my images have to document thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars in casualty losses + scene investigations, in heavily-litigated files.
I have found the 28mm focal length to be more useful, as a middle ground between wide expansion, matched with the ability to still see detail, than any other 'wide' focal length, so this new Nikkor lens excites me ;D
-
First review I've seen:
- "The Nikon 28mm f1.4E is a high quality wide lens that fills the gap between their 24/1.4G and 35/1.4G lenses for full-frame bodies. It delivers very good image quality coming close to or even surpassing the Zeiss Otus 28/1.4 in my tests."
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-28mm-f1-4e-review
The article is somewhat poorly-written, redundant, and repeatedly mentions results "on a DX" (will any DX owner buy this? :o).
However, the takeaway is the Otus beats the new Nikkor for fringing (Apo) but not on sharpness. While the Zeiss' sharpness is more even from center-to-corner, the Nikon AF nails the focus every time, whereas manually-focusing the Zeiss at f/1.4 can result in hit-or-miss. Both have great bokeh for the category. The Otus is twice as heavy, more than twice as expensive, no weather sealing, no AF.
The Nikkor 28mm f/1.4E beats anything else in its class (Nikkor 24 f/1.4G, Nikkor 28 f/1.8G, Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G), including the Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 ... which "cannot match" the bokeh of the 28 f1/4E, and also suffers from coma blur.
It appears to be a great value. Optically, it is positioned ahead of everything else, nearly as good as the Otus, will nail the shots more dependably, and yet is less than half the price.
-
Nikon is on a roll, all of their recent lens releases have been benchmarks.
On top of irreproachable technical qualities, what's great about these lenses is that they simply render beautifully.
You've got to love the facts that many photographers deprive themselves from such wonderful tools because of strategic concerns about Nikon's financial health. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon is on a roll, all of their recent lens releases have been benchmarks.
On top of irreproachable technical qualities, what's great about these lenses is that they simply render beautifully.
Indeed.
You've got to love the facts that many photographers deprive themselves from such wonderful tools because of strategic concerns about Nikon's financial health. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Or prejudice. Regardless, what I really love are the options that are unfolding: superb sharpness + superb rendering + unrivaled AF performance.
That is a winning combination. If you have superb sharpness, but miss the shot (due to a MF error or 3rd-party AF incompatibility error), your "sharpness" quotient is academic, not reality-based. Rendering is also one of those "intangibles" that is both personal as well as situational. "Corner-to-corner" sharpness sounds good, on paper, and for some applications is essential. However, often, esp. in portraiture of flower photography, corner-to-corner sharpness is an impediment to "that dreamy effect," which some people criticize as "too clinical," whereas a progressive softening away from the center is actually a rendering enhancement.
-
Regardless of the optical quality of the lens, I never understood the 28mm focal length, especially as a prime.
It's too wide to be a 'normal' lens or for environmental portraits, too wide to be particularly useful for stitching, but not wide enough for the landscapes, interiors amd other things you'd typically use a UWA for. It seems to be a focal length that sits better as a step between 24mm and 35mm on a zoom lens, to be used for exact framing of certain subjects where you can't, or don't want to, move the camera or the subject, rather than something that's particularly useful as a prime in its own right.
In addition to Bernard's reply I requote below, I will add some words and apologies in advance if I mention stuff you already know...
Why primes, back in the early film era they were the best, older zooms were limited and awful in optical quality in general...
Primes are also smaller and or allow a larger aperture than an equivalent zoom for those specialising to a fixed focal length...
Why large aperture, it gave more flexibility on film choice, it gave a brighter viewfinder image, it helped achieve critical focus before stopping down in an SLR. It could allow some subject isolation wide open and a softer effect if needed...
Why 28mm, 28mm is considered the widest prime before you have the dual challenge of controlling your verticals and getting to close too a human subject being shot. It became a classic reportage lens the world over and the old Nikon was most sort after. It is just easier to use than say a 24mm which is too wide for that fast moving work where you want to be part of the scene, amongst those your shooting, and get all the surounding action in... (I don't mean selfy)
You mention 24mm for landscape and it was the classic lens for that in its day. 28mm just looks wrong for those types of shot.
24mm can be used with care if you are shooting people you know and have time to set up a more dramatic effect than can be achieved with 28mm
As Bernard also mentioned, 28mm is a great wide for street photography for the same reason it was popular with news reporters...
Why did Nikon release this now, as you hinted why this lens, less demand means the last to get replaced and it has been a long wait for some Nikon users who have been waiting for this day for years... I bet the ones that love this will not hesitate to buy, despite the high performance of some modern 2.8 primes in that range...
Is it needed in the digital age, well it is if you want the aperture and overall lens size, a zoom of the same aperture if made will be too big and heavy for the typical tight in use it would encourage...
Some folk are still passionate about certain focal lengths and will avoid zooms as they encourage the lazy framing you mentioned. A tool for a job a certain look and feel to the image only that focal length can deliver if the full image is uncropped...
Why not 35mm, some find 35mm boring some love it and find it much easier to use. The effect is very different, a 35mm almost has the look of a standard lens in some shots, and is just not wide enough when needed...
All personal to how people want to shot...
...
In terms of lens design also, 28mm is pretty much the widest you can use and still get sufficient subject isolation over the background. You have to get way too close with a 24mm f1.4 or wider.
...
-
I have received my copy, days after I sold my Otus 28mm f1.4.
The first very casual test reveals a level of sharpness I have never seen in a wide lens except the Otus 28mm f1.4, and they seem very very close.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Lenstip and Cameralabs have reviews...
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=504
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-28mm-f1-4e-review/
In general they like the lens.
i would liked it to be a bit sharper in the corners as the Otus, and it has some longitudinal aberration.
Coma seems to be a big problem on wide angle lenses even the otus did not manage that in the corners, the nikon is slightly worse.
Lenstip says the AF is low, burt they measure going through the whole scale and with wide angles that is not necessary most of the time.
-
They measure it as sharper than the 105mm f1.4 in the center, itself one of sharpest lenses available...
It is almost as good as the Otus 28mm f1.4 at half the price, half the weight and half the size.
Anyway you look at it this absolutely remarkable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sad that Nikon can't make a fast wide without coma albeit the coma in 28mm does appear better than the 24mm 1.4 or 1.8.
Still hoping to see the results of the Sigma 14mm 1.8 First pass was positive for coma correction but I have seen anything formal.
Lens tip has the lens listed but no review yet. Appears the Canon version is shipping now, but not the Nikon
Paul Caldwell
-
Sad that Nikon can't make a fast wide without coma albeit the coma in 28mm does appear better than the 24mm 1.4 or 1.8.
Still hoping to see the results of the Sigma 14mm 1.8 First pass was positive for coma correction but I have seen anything formal.
Lens tip has the lens listed but no review yet. Appears the Canon version is shipping now, but not the Nikon
Paul Caldwell
Why is it "sad," when even the Zeiss Otus 28 had coma issues?
Speaking of sad, you apparently didn't read what Camera Labs had to say about the Sigma 24 Art, its closest competitor to the Nikon 28, where the Sigma not only wasn't as sharp, but "cannot match" the bokeh of the 28 f1/4E, and also suffers from coma blur. The Nikkor's bokeh was as good as the Otus'.
The Nikkor 28mm was even sharper than the Otus in the center ... though not so much in the corners, but still very sharp.
If you're photographing people, food, or center-weighted subjects ... the extreme center sharpness with gradual softening toward the edges is actually an enhancement to the already-superb bokeh.
-
Why is it "sad," when even the Zeiss Otus 28 had coma issues?
Speaking of sad, you apparently didn't read what Camera Labs had to say about the Sigma 24 Art, its closest competitor to the Nikon 28, where the Sigma not only wasn't as sharp, but "cannot match" the bokeh of the 28 f1/4E, and also suffers from coma blur. The Nikkor's bokeh was as good as the Otus'.
The Nikkor 28mm was even sharper than the Otus in the center ... though not so much in the corners, but still very sharp.
If you're photographing people, food, or center-weighted subjects ... the extreme center sharpness with gradual softening toward the edges is actually an enhancement to the already-superb bokeh.
Hi John
Last time I checked the 24 1.4 was over 2K, may have come down now. My point is any lens of this price point should be designed for not just sharpness, distortions are also important. Not photographing people, where I can see where the other attributes of the 28mm would be fine, for sure. But I can get the same degree of sharpness fall off with a lot of different lenses less expensive.
For my use in landscape, the faster lenses are mainly needed for astro work, and thus coma is a no go. Totally no go.
Paul Caldwell
-
Hi John
Last time I checked the 24 1.4 was over 2K, may have come down now. My point is any lens of this price point should be designed for not just sharpness, distortions are also important. Not photographing people, where I can see where the other attributes of the 28mm would be fine, for sure. But I can get the same degree of sharpness fall off with a lot of different lenses less expensive.
Hi Paul;
The lens is $1,999. It is designed for far more than sharpness, but for bokeh and rendering. It excels in all of these categories. And, actually, you can't get that level of sharpness, rendering, or bokeh ... in any 24, 28, or 35 lens ... unless it's an Otus. That's the selling point. In fact, it's sharper than the Otus in the center ... and it being a top-tier AF lens means a person hand-holding will likely nail a far-higher percentage of low-light shots, in perfect focus, than someone using an Otus ... "hoping" his 1.4 shots are in focus relying on his eyes alone.
For my use in landscape, the faster lenses are mainly needed for astro work, and thus coma is a no go. Totally no go.
Paul Caldwell
Could definitely see your point regarding coma, if you're doing Astro work. Even the Otus couldn't help you there.
For my use, in nature photography (or in evidentiary photography), coma doesn't matter ... and its uber-sharpness in the center ... plus somewhat lessened (yet still far above-average) sharpness at the edges is actually perfect.
For your purposes, not so much.
Cheers.
-
I have to test the lens myself, but 24mm is my favorite wideangle.
Speaking of that if you compare the Lenstip test of the 600€ 24mm 1.8G lens and compare it with the 28mm 1.4E lens....
The 24mm has better coma- less/hardly any longitudinal aberration, and is above f2.8 as sharp as the 28mm. (and it is 24mm)
Also i can tell you can use the lens @1.8 at infinity with very flat focus and it is only 355 grams.
What makes it less good is the built ( lightweight/plastic) and below f2.8 the 28mm is clearly sharper.
Also it seems the coatings are a bit better. Manual focus is not easy but can be done.
So yes this 28mm is a good choice if you use it wide open with the subject in the central area, when corners sharpness is irrelevant.
The lens that is clearly superior @f2.8 is the Otus were it reaches higher values than the Nikkor at any aperture.
-
I have to test the lens myself, but 24mm is my favorite wideangle.
Speaking of that if you compare the lenstip test of the 600€ 24mm 1.8G lens and compare it with the 28mm 1.4E lens....
The 24mm has better coma- less/hardly any longitudinal aberration, and is above f2.8 as sharp as the 28mm. (and it is 24mm)
Also i can tell you can use the lens @1.8 at infinity with very flat focus and it is only 355 grams.
What makes it less good is the built ( lightweight/plastic) and below f2.8 the 28mm is clearly sharper.
Also it seems the coatings are a bit better. Manual focus is not easy but can be done.
Indeed, I have in fact replaced my 24mm f1.4 by the 24mm f1.8. Amazing lens really.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have to test the lens myself, but 24mm is my favorite wideangle.
Speaking of that if you compare the Lenstip test of the 600€ 24mm 1.8G lens and compare it with the 28mm 1.4E lens....
Would be interested in hearing your views.
The 24mm has better coma- less/hardly any longitudinal aberration, and is above f2.8 as sharp as the 28mm. (and it is 24mm)
Also i can tell you can use the lens @1.8 at infinity with very flat focus and it is only 355 grams.
What makes it less good is the built ( lightweight/plastic) and below f2.8 the 28mm is clearly sharper.
Also it seems the coatings are a bit better. Manual focus is not easy but can be done.
Well, what a lens does at f/2.8 isn't what you pay extra for, is it? ;)
The fact the Nikkor 28E f/1.4 is as sharp(er) as the Otus at f/1.4, with comparable bokeh, plus AF ... at half the weight and half the price ... should put anyone who hand-holds in low-light in a state of euphoria.
Those who shoot landscapes, using a tripod, Live View, and have the time to manual focus might not be as thrilled ... and might prefer the Otus ... provided they want to spend the $3,000 on the Otus to have "better edge resolution," yet still suffer from coma.
So yes this 28mm is a good choice if you use it wide open with the subject in the central area, when corners sharpness is irrelevant.
The lens that is clearly superior @f2.8 is the Otus were it reaches higher values than the Nikkor at any aperture.
We agree. If you are hand-holding, and shooting center-weighed subjects in low-light, as a street (or other) on-the-go photographer, the 28E is without questions the lens to get.
It's good that the Otus completely (albeit marginally) overtakes the Nikon at some point (f/2.8+), to justify its $3,000 additional price point.
Trouble is, the Otus doesn't really do this where it matters ... which is f/1.4.
The 28E f/1.4 might not be as light as a 24f/1.8 ... but it is much lighter than an Otus ... and much better than the 24 f/2.8 (and equal to the Otus 28 f/1.4), where it matters, which is wide-open.