Nikkor 28 mm F/1.4 AF-D comments

Do you shoot DX of FX? the reason that I ask is when I shot DX, I used the 28 f/1.4 a lot for people shots (much like I used a 35 in my film days). Now on FX, I'm finding it a bit wide for this application. Any thoughts?
--
Jeff

ddk said:

Check out my gallery at http://www.theexpressivemoment.com

Click to expand...

--

FX D700 (that is also why it would be useful for landscap, me too I prefer 35 mm for walkaround on FX)

Jeff Klofft said:

Do you shoot DX of FX? the reason that I ask is when I shot DX, I
used the 28 f/1.4 a lot for people shots (much like I used a 35 in my
film days). Now on FX, I'm finding it a bit wide for this
application. Any thoughts?
--
Jeff

Click to expand...

Its a very good question, I started shooting with the 28/1.4 originally with film, I used to live in bangkok and I did a lot of night time shooting. At the time this was like the ideal lens to shoot with around town and in night clubs, just wish I was more careful with the type/age of film I used and had it processed professionally instead of the corner 1 hour photo. On digital its DX when I shoot people, this, the 14/2.8 and the Zeiss 28mm are my main lenses for personal work. I don't seem to shoot FX as much, mostly with longer lenses for people or when I shoot landscape or product. I never realized this before responding to your post, it could be the cameras or just being used to those fls and how they work with DX, or that I still prefer my Fujis over others.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk

Peter Kayaert said:

--
FX D700 (that is also why it would be useful for landscap, me too I
prefer 35 mm for walkaround on FX)

Click to expand...

If your priority for using this lens is landscape then I recommend the Zeiss 25/2 over it. The Zeiss is sharper, has better color and contrast, better built and costs a lot less, but for shooting people the slight softness of the 28/1.4 is what adds to the beauty.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk

Jeff Klofft said:

Do you shoot DX of FX? the reason that I ask is when I shot DX, I used the 28 f/1.4 a lot for people shots (much like I used a 35 in my film days). Now on FX, I'm finding it a bit wide for this application. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Hi!

Well the wideness of 28mm isn't too much of a problem for FX as long as I remember not to get too close (makes the nose look relatively big) or get the person too far away from the center of the frame causing distortion. Of course with FX, it's easier too be lulled into both.

Here's a "people" shot from last weekend. A street artist sitting on the side walk in San Diego's Gaslamp District. The lighting was just from ambient street lamps. Cropped 30%:
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/125s f/2.0 at 28.0mm iso3200



Another 28 1.4 shot from San Diego, this one @ f/1.4:
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/400s f/1.4 at 28.0mm iso3200



And a few more casual people shots:
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/15s f/2.2 at 28.0mm iso400



Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF ,SB-800
1/60s f/3.2 at 28.0mm iso2500



This one on DX:
Nikon D200 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/60s f/1.8 at 28.0mm iso800



Best Regards,

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

VRII said:

I can only comment on my copy of the 28mm F/2.0 and it is very sharp
wide open, I'd be happy to compare it against any wide angle prime at
F/2. I believe Bjorn also found the F/2 to be sharp wide open

Click to expand...

Well, one person's very sharp may be soft to another, as we all know.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Ilkka Nissilä wrote:
Well, one person's very sharp may be soft to another, as we all know.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect, simplistic general statements make a great bumper stickers not sound logic.

The 28mm F/2.0 is very, very sharp wide, at this stage of the game I know the difference between soft and sharp and I think Bjorn's professional opinion carries more weight than a simplistic bumper sticker statement.