Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon AF-S 28mm F1.8 G Samples (Bokeh!)

Go to last post
M

MS82

Leading Member
Messages
711
Reaction score
199
Location
UK
This is a fantastic lens. Only received my copy two nights ago so haven't had a chance to put it through its paces yet, but here are a quick few shots i took on the dining table. Taken with my D700 (partly resting on the table and partly hand-held), all images have literally no PP. Just shot in raw, imported into Lightroom 4 and Camera Vivid v4 profile used. Sharpening settings are at default too (30, 1.0, 25, 0) - quite low actually, i should upped it. No noise reduction applied whatsoever. Some of these have gone up to ISO 6400 so just bare in mind the affects this has on dynamic range, contrast and sharpness. I think this lens is pretty impressive. Bokeh is absolutely lovely for a 28mm. I haven't noticed any focus-shift issues either like some online reviews have. The focus accuracy on mine is great.

PS, i have focussed on the text on the lens hood (HB-47).

There is a fair amount of vignetting at f/1.8, but since i actually like this, i've left this in the pics too. If you're not a fan, Lightroom 4 does a perfect job of removing this. I was surprised to find Lightroom 4 already had a profile for this lens.

This lens is definitely a keeper, and most definitely recommended to those of you who like small, light, fast and affordable primes. My journey to this lens went from Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 > Nikon 24-120mm f/4 > Nikon 28mm f/1.8.

I am really loving my new 28mm and 50mm f/1.8 combo. The 24-70mm f/2.8 was great, but no comparison to these.

Anyway, here are the few samples i have taken so far:



























 
It does have a nice bokeh. The only problem with the lens is the large number of bad 'samples', two of three review sites I went to had bad units - and some members of this forum who have had issues with copies of this lens.

If you get a good copy, it looks very nice indeed. I am starting to prefer the 28 FL over the 35.

This was my primary reason for going with the Zeiss 28/2 (which I am very happy with).
 
inasir1971 said:
It does have a nice bokeh. The only problem with the lens is the large number of bad 'samples', two of three review sites I went to had bad units - and some members of this forum who have had issues with copies of this lens.

If you get a good copy, it looks very nice indeed. I am starting to prefer the 28 FL over the 35.

This was my primary reason for going with the Zeiss 28/2 (which I am very happy with).
Click to expand...
I am surprised as i cannot fault my copy. Maybe if i were to offer my lens up for 'critical' review then these sites would probably find faults in mine too. The point is though in real life all you're after is a very usable image. We don't pixel-peep all our pics - at least i don't. As long as the focus looks accurate and the end results are pleasing, i'm not overly fussed about any focus charts.
 
Manny82 said:
I am really loving my new 28mm and 50mm f/1.8 combo. The 24-70mm f/2.8 was great, but no comparison to these.
Click to expand...
You feel that bokeh and added dof options more than make up for the loss of resolution?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=802&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=618&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

And does anyone have bokeh examples of the Samyang/Rokinon 24mm 1.4 ?
--
Honorifics bestowed thus far by DPR members, rattymouse: drooling moron ;
 
InterestedParty said:
You feel that bokeh and added dof options more than make up for the loss of resolution?
Click to expand...
For my uses - certainly. Utmost resolution isn't the be all and end all. Another reason why i purchased a D700 over a D800.

I was on a quest to find an all-in-one lens with minimal compromise. So two months ago I purchased a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. Now as much as i loved that lens, it certainly isn't what i would call a walkabout lens. What it does, it does very well indeed, and the limited collection of shots i took with that lens, i look back at and think "that was a pretty good lens". In the end though, f/2.8 wasn't fast enough and the lens was too large and too heavy. So that got returned and i then purchased a Nikon 24-120mm f/4. Another fantastic lens but not fantastic all of the time like the 24-70. Lighter and smaller yes, but still quite heavy. I could live with that as a walkabout solution, and the VR certainly made up for the f/4 aperture in regards to low-light shooting. Whilst it was absolutely great at 24mm at any aperture (including f/4), it left more to be desired at the longer focal lengths. So two things were still bugging me: a) it don't think it justified the £850 i paid for it, and b) i really missed having a large aperture. Whilst VR can compensate for a slow aperture, nothing can compensate for the loss of 'pop' you get from decent bokeh. The 50mm f/1.8 G was my first and only other lens and i guess i was just spoilt by the quality of image that lens gives - not even the 24-70mm lived up to it.

So in the end, i concluded that the 28mm f/1.8 G was what i was looking for. I purchased it and now i couldn't be happier. Coupled with the 50mm f/1.8 G - this is a killer combo. I may purchase an 85mm f/1.8 G at some point but it's not on my list of high-requirements at the mo. These three lenses together cost roughly the same as the 24-70 - so make a very good alternative for those of us who like to be able to take a light solution (body & one lens) on a night out for example.

I do a bit of event photography too and so do require a zoom - especially for Indian weddings and parties. I would still like a Nikon 24-70mm - just at this moment in time, the cost of that lens doesn't justify it for me being as i wouldn't want to use it every day, whereas these light primes are perfect for every day use.

So like i said, utmost resolution isn't the be all and end all. I haven't even looked at your link but i assume it's a link to a test chart. If so, i challenge you to point out the difference in resolution between a 24-70mm and a 28mm or 50mm f/1.8 prime at any similar focal length and aperture. You must have superman eyes if you can tell the difference in resolution in print or even at normal-image size viewing.
 
Manny82 said:
You must have superman eyes if you can tell the difference in resolution in print or even at normal-image size viewing.
Click to expand...
No, still just trying to figure out which end is up.

So thanks for the clues :)

--
Honorifics bestowed thus far by DPR members, rattymouse: drooling moron ;
 
The problem seems to be this huge copy to copy variation - which suggests production issues. Two of three reviews I saw had problems with their lenses (one side was soft compared to other) - Lloyd Chambers and another I can't recall had issues, Photozone didn't. One DPR member showed examples of images from their lens and they were way off easily noticeable with a small screen sized image.

The review sites can't seem to agree whether or not there is focus shift - Mansurov (who had to get three copies in order to do his review) and Lloyd Chambers both say there is severe focus shift, Photozone concludes otherwise but notes reports of this. Tim Ashley did a review of this lens in his blog and he did not encounter focus shift.

It's this copy variation that is an issue. Repairs for defective units (as not all markets have return policies) are difficult as you may get the 'within spec' response.

If you are fortunate enough to have received a good one, then it does indeed sound like a nice lens with a pleasing bokeh.
Manny82 said:
I am surprised as i cannot fault my copy. Maybe if i were to offer my lens up for 'critical' review then these sites would probably find faults in mine too. The point is though in real life all you're after is a very usable image. We don't pixel-peep all our pics - at least i don't. As long as the focus looks accurate and the end results are pleasing, i'm not overly fussed about any focus charts.
Click to expand...
 
You are right - i also read many conflicting reviews about this lens too. That's why i waited for Amazon to get stock and then i purchased it from Amazon when the price was right. Amazon (at least in the UK) have a fantastic 30-day returns policy - so i always purchase from Amazon now - i don't mind paying upto £30 more for this privilege. If i purchase from other vendors (because Amazon don't have stock), i always get confirmation in email first that they won't sting me should i choose to return my purchase to them. I suggest everyone else does this too. You have nothing to lose then, and it's the only way you're guaranteed to find something you're happy with.
 
Manny82 said:
Sorry?
Click to expand...
Why?

I just took your quoted statement as indicating the difference in resolution was irrelevant. Your opinion is another data point, another small step on my path to wherever I'm going.

--
Honorifics bestowed thus far by DPR members, rattymouse: drooling moron ;
 
bigconig - i agree with others - your image is great.
 
I've returned four samples to Amazon.com because they all had these issues:
  • Images were not very sharp and had color fringing at all apertures.
  • Manual focus had a gritty feel
  • Auto Focus on two samples seemed to stick way out of focus
  • Not a functional issue, but perhaps indicative of quality. The Nikon gold lettering on all samples was uneven, thin and had a dingy orange cast. My first thought was the lenses were not authentic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top