Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I've been doing some homework. It looks like the first 28/2.8 AF, the one with the thin metal focus ring, was a five-element design taken from the 28 Series E. As such, it is not thought to be a very good lens. Then the AF-D is supposed to be a redesigned, improved, six element design. That one has the two-row rubber focus ring.
So here's my question. I've seen 28/2.8 examples that had the newer style cosmetics with the rubber focus ring, but are not marked "D." Was the optical upgrade done at the time of the cosmetic change, before the "D" was added? Or was it not upgraded optically until the "D" version?
So here's my question. I've seen 28/2.8 examples that had the newer style cosmetics with the rubber focus ring, but are not marked "D." Was the optical upgrade done at the time of the cosmetic change, before the "D" was added? Or was it not upgraded optically until the "D" version?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Only the D version has the upgraded optics. I have one, and I used to have the Series E lens that the old one was based on. The Series E is actually not bad, its sharp, but it is not as sharp as the best 28/2.8 lenses out there, and the D version is one of the best.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Thanks, Chris.
kichu1979
Member
Please note that even 28/2.8 D AF is not a very good lens and considered one of the worst Nikon lenses in the current lineup. Both 24/2.8 and 20/2.8 are much better.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Hey! I bought a box of "photo junk" at a yard sale that included a Nikon HN-2 screw in type hood for 28mm f/2.8 and f/3.5 lenses. It's in the box and appears new. Anybody want it? PM me if you do. $10 shipped in the U.S.
john_s
Well-known
Rob, have a look at this site. It does show such a lens (28mm AF non-D), and serial numbers are listed too.
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
I have the original thin-ring 28/2.8 AF. It's not bad. Stopped down to F5.6 you are not going to notice much difference. The optical formula reminds me of the Schneider 35/2.8 Curtagon for the Kodak Retina. I prefer my 28/2 and 24/2.8. But they are going to cost a lot more than the AF 28/2.8.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes I have an AI-converted 24/2.8 I've been happy with. And I have a 24/2.8 AIS with late serial number on its way to me. And also an AF 24/2.8.Can you tell I like this focal length on the Nikon? And a 28/2.8 AIS. Based on these comments, I may just skip the 28/2.8 AF. I just thought I might like it as a walkaround lens on the D200. I can use my manual focus version.
Further commetns are welcome, though!
pvdhaar
Peter
On paper, yes..
In practice, it depends..
I've tried several samples of the 24/2.8D, and (store return policy) brought them back. They just weren't sharp despite having CRC. Got the 28/2.8D instead, and it was spot on. Used it for years without a hitch. This taught me one important lesson.. reputations can be undeserved.
With respect to the 20/2.8, I've got the older non-D version, and it's indeed a fine lens, but it's not 'much' better than the 28/2.8D. I'd say they're on par.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't know that I'd agree with that. I have the 28 and the 24, both AF-D versions. The 24 has CRC (floating elements for closeup work) and is slightly better up close but at normal distances they're about equal on my D200. I know on film neither are as good as the Olympus OM equivilents that I use regularly on film on my OM-4T bodies
Warren T.
Well-known
I have a "thin ring", first series 28mm f2.8 AF that i often use on my D100. It's not bad at all. If you can get one at a good price, I'd suggest that you try it to see if it will meet your needs. I also have a 24mm f2.8 AF (non-D), and I think my 28mm is better than the 24mm for sharpness.
--Warren
--Warren
Mudman
Well-known
I have the 28 mm AF with the redesign, but not D designated. Nice lens stopped down, wide open good for general work but very soft corners on full frame. Haven't noticed it on my D300.