Help would you buy a 28mm F1.4D or 35mm F1.4?

Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
654
Location
England
i dont normaly post things like this but i cant think straight and need some good advice or just your views :confused:

firstly i have owned a 24mm f1.4 and didnt get on with it,i thought the 35mm f1.4 may be more to my taste for late night/music photography.

but now i have a chance of a 28mm F1.4D for £2,000 which lets face it we all lusted after at some time or another and its a rare chance to buy one.
there is no warranty and more expensive than a 35mm.

whats your thoughts?

i only use Nikon lens so its one of these 2 or nothing [i have a 35mm F2 already].
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
Personally I would go with the 35G - Any lens without a warranty for that price is worrisome....its not like were talking about a 200f/2 and 135DC for the same price. The 35 is a great lens on paper and in the field. The 28 1.4 carries on from the same principle but nostalgia def plays a larger role...
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
20
Location
denmark
35mm f1.4 was my choice. The price of the 28mm f1.4D is still priced like an collectors item, but delivers nothing the two new G lenses doesnt.
I would feel better spending crazy amounts on the noct, for which no modern alternative exists.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
227
Location
Seattle
I would choose the 24/1.4g but you said you didn't like it. So I guess my next choice would be the 35/1.4g. I was not overly impressed with the 28/1.4d once the novelty of having a somewhat rare and expensive lens wore off.

The 28/1.4d was soft at 1.4; that was my main gripe. Other than that and to be fair, it was capable of having a nice 3 dimensional rendering and the AF speed and physical size if the lens was nice.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
The reason you can't make up your mind is that you don't find either to be a compelling buy. Save your money until something comes along you can't resist. If low light photography is the issue, sell your current camera, add the $2000 that's burning a hole in your pocket, and buy a d3s. You'll be able to take pictures of a black cat in a coal mine.
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Wilkes Barre, PA
The 35 f1.4 is better on paper. The 28mm f1.4D 2nd hand price has also dropped since the fast 35 and 24 have hit the market.

The 28 is AFD is a screwdriver lens so will be louder.

All that beside, it really comes down to FOV doesn't it? I personally don't like 28mm much, so I'd got to the 35mm for sure.

JCA
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
150
Location
New Jersey
The reason you can't make up your mind is that you don't find either to be a compelling buy. Save your money until something comes along you can't resist. If low light photography is the issue, sell your current camera, add the $2000 that's burning a hole in your pocket, and buy a d3s. You'll be able to take pictures of a black cat in a coal mine.
+1
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
654
Location
England
i already have a D3s
its the what the lens can do rather than the camera i am looking at.
the 28mm dose not seem to have gone down in price as people expected.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
654
Location
England
i can see the 35mm would be the sensible choice

what would be the artistic choice?

i may just be caught up in the aura/rarity of the 28mm
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
6,091
Location
Alberta
There is no doubt that buying the newest shiny Nikkors is a safe bet. On the other hand, the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D is the only 28 mm out of the three and its hand-ground aspherical elements give more shadow detail than the modern lenses made by Nikon.

Well, I say this about the two Nikkor 24 1.4s I tested; in truth, I am not sure about the 35 1.4 AF-S as I haven’t played with that one yet. However, I see no reason why it would be any different.

As far as the 28 1.4 AF-D, I find it's the perfect focal length for me and what I need in a Nikkor wide angle. I used my copy and it was indispensable for taking shots in near-dark conditions @ f/1.4.

And as you have noticed, the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D is holding its own value wise. Just this week, I had another photographer look at the images taken with mine and now he wants the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF. Funny, he never mentioned the new 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 Nikkors. And while I must confess a curiosity about both of these lenses, especially when I see my pal David's use of them :smile:, I have zero lust for either one of them.

For now, I will keep plugging along with the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D.









Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D

My new photo pal Keven.


Gregory
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
1,496
The reason you can't make up your mind is that you don't find either to be a compelling buy. Save your money until something comes along you can't resist. If low light photography is the issue, sell your current camera, add the $2000 that's burning a hole in your pocket, and buy a d3s. You'll be able to take pictures of a black cat in a coal mine.
I'll agree with Frank. If you have the slightest doubt or question, don't buy either. And like Frank said, consider a D3s for low light photography.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
654
Location
England
thanks for your view AIS

before the new 1.4s i was sure i wanted/needed the 28mm

i would still choose a brough superiour over a vincent over a jota
not sure if thats relevant though?
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
90
Location
Toronto
I'm sticking with my 28mm f1.4. Sure it's not as sharp as the 24 & 35 @ f1.4 but it's still a fast lens and I like it's rendition. A few 28's
D700 @ f2.5
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

For full 28mm f1.4 gallery please view here.
http://www.pbase.com/matrixone/nikon_28mm_f14_afd

Pierre
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
i'd go the 35/1.4 over a 28/1.4
i had a 28mm on a Leica M6 and didn't get along with it. in order to fill a candid frame with the 28mm i had to take that one step too close and it ruined a lot of good shots.

a 35mm would have been a much better bet on that camera.

besides, a 28 just isn't wide enough for my tastes. i'd prefer a 24mm or a 35mm over a 28mm any and every day.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom