28mm f/2.8 and 35mm /f1.4 comparison

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Rich Gibson, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. Well I have both in hand now. I'm going to run them through some applications and see how they comapre. I'll post the results once I get far enough along.

    LLD not withstanding I just couldn't see spending that much money for the 28mm f/1.4.

    Rich
     
  2. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    Which 28 lens did you end up with? f/2 or some of the many f/2.8 variants? The reason for my asking this is that these lenses are very different and only the 28/2 is a good performer at the wide-open setting.
     
  3. Bjorn, I want to thank you for your post. I was so focused on the lens I failed to notice that they sent me a f2.8 not a 2.0! Double checking with the company indicates the person packing the lens made an error. They'll ship a 2.0 or the same quality tomorrow.

    Well, that's strike one for KEH.com. The 2.8 they shipped was in beautiful condition so I'm going to let this pass. I did have to give them my credit card number and get charged again until the first lens is returned when they will issue a credit.

    Drat!

    :evil:
     
  4. patrickh

    patrickh

    666
    May 4, 2005
    Thousand Oaks
    Those are two awesome lenses - my favorite is the 35/1.4, it seems to have a bit more "pop" and is possibly a tad sharper in the corners. But you are really splitting hairs with these two. Cured any lust I might have for the 28/1.4 (especially when I look at that price tag - that alone is worth a LOL)
     
  5. The 28mm f/2 arrived and I took a samle set of images. Same camera, same ISO same lighting conditions. I'm including the first three F stop crops. These are the jpgs with no sharpening or PP.
    28mm f/2 ISO 100 f2.0
    47644893.
    28mm f/2 ISO 100 f2.8
    View attachment 13610
    28mm f/2 ISO 100 f4.0
    View attachment 13611
    35mm f/1.4 ISO 100 f1.4
    View attachment 13612
    35mm f/1.4 ISO 100 F2.0
    View attachment 13613
    35mm f/1.4 ISO 100 F2.8
    View attachment 13614

    The 28 at f/2 wasn't quite as sharp as the 35mm at f1.4 however at f/1.4 the 35's sharpness varied over the image more than the 28's. Also the 35 had more of a "milky" cast at f/1.4 than the 28 at it's lowest setting (f/2). It may be difficult to discern this from the posts here, but at 300% the differences are visible.

    After that the 28 was sharper fstop to fstop (2.8 to 2.8). Additionally the 35 has a reddish cast to some edges of the Celtic deisgns and the 28 doesn't.

    I think I like the 28mm f/2.0 better.

    Rich
     
  6. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Sounds like a winner lens Rich!

    Question: How do you focus with manual lenses? By using the green (?) dot? Or can you judge sharp from the viewfinder screen? After talking with you about the 35, I did some practice using my 35mm f/2 in MF mode. I found it nearly impossible to guess at when an image is sharp, except in bright light.

    The dot works well though, but I need to go look for it, cause it's way down in the corner.
     
  7. That's exactly how I focus...look for the (yellow?) round dot in the lower left of the viewfinder.

    Rich
     
  8. ckdamascus

    ckdamascus

    928
    May 14, 2005
    New Jersey
    On my D2H, the little arrows tell you where to spin the focus ring to get closer to the proper focus spot until you get the solid green dot.

    The D70 is a hit or miss process and has a tiny viewfinder; thus making manual focus a pain and almost futile.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Nikon 28mm 1.8G or 35mm 1.8G FX? Lens Lust Mar 24, 2014
which manual prime 28mm or 35mm for film camera? Lens Lust Dec 24, 2013
Sigma 35mm f1.4 v Nikon 28mm G f1.8 Lens Lust Jul 15, 2013
Help would you buy a 28mm F1.4D or 35mm F1.4? Lens Lust May 24, 2011
Nikkor 35mm f2D vs. Sigma 28mm 1.8? Lens Lust Feb 7, 2010