DSLRUsers.com

Has anybody tried the AFD 28mm f1.4 on any of the newer bodies? Reviews proclaiming it to be soft and I was wondering if any of the newer bodies like the D300, D700 or the D3 would be able to utilise the lens better.

Please post some tests if you have the lens or either one of the bodies.

I had a short play with this lens and everything is absolutely mind blowing. Sharpness, colour and bokeh at f/1.4 are phenomenal, but you will have some DOF issue to deal with at f/1.4. I will try to find few sample photos when I get home tonight.

The price you pay for this lens is just too high (as its considered "rare"), at least for me to justify purchasing one.

I do think it was quite expensive for what it is, and seeing many reviews say it's soft, I'm seeing if I can justify it, or just go to Canon.

actually i hope nikon start reproduce a new version for this gem soon. canon 24mm 1.4 is so tempting for me to switch camp for a wide angle fast len.

I would love to see some images from this lens too. I use my 28 2.8 MF a lot on both my bodies and find it a great walk around lens on a DX format camera.
Being MF is a bit of a poo, If I were to go AF 28 1.4 would be nice.

I think a lot of reviews confuse a short depth of field and struggling to focus with that depth of field as being soft.
I have a 55 1.2 MF, was renound for being a """"""""Soft""""""" lens and have had some super sharp images from it, but gee its a bugger to focus of get the focus correct, often resulting in mixed image sharpness. good having those extra stops though, can hand held shoot with my D3 in almost pitch black

Mick

These are rather rare and rather expensive for a prime (excluding anything >300mm) from what I have seen.

But they certainly are popular.

ljxphotography wrote:I would love to see some images from this lens too. I use my 28 2.8 MF a lot on both my bodies and find it a great walk around lens on a DX format camera.
Being MF is a bit of a poo, If I were to go AF 28 1.4 would be nice.

I think a lot of reviews confuse a short depth of field and struggling to focus with that depth of field as being soft.
I have a 55 1.2 MF, was renound for being a """"""""Soft""""""" lens and have had some super sharp images from it, but gee its a bugger to focus of get the focus correct, often resulting in mixed image sharpness. good having those extra stops though, can hand held shoot with my D3 in almost pitch black

Mick

The AiS 28mm f2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses I've used, although I only have the f2 version now.

And same with your 55mm f1.2, my 50mm f1.2 has got veiling wide open and sharp at f2, which is a bugger since sometimes you need the one and more stops for seperation.

But it doesn't really matter anyway now, switching the majority of my gear to Canon. Selling half of the gear, keeping the 28mm f2 and 35mm f1.4...

Cannon, Why

Im not brand bias, I just love my Nikons

Mick

I love Nikons too but ultimately I think the Canon sensors are better and the files can be pushed a bit better.

Actually I do want to get a D700 later on, plus the 50D and 5d2.



But anyway, all the tests I've seen on the 28mm f1.4 is soft wide open, which is a bad sign for such an expensive lens.

Grev wrote:Has anybody tried the AFD 28mm f1.4 on any of the newer bodies? Reviews proclaiming it to be soft and I was wondering if any of the newer bodies like the D300, D700 or the D3 would be able to utilise the lens better.

Please post some tests if you have the lens or either one of the bodies.

.......... depends on what you determined what soft is against DOF wide open where at 1.4 there is almost no DOF........ If I beleived all the so called reports I would have no lens....... I have the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and it is great, but also I do not shoot wide open, always at least 1 stop down as minium

If this lens were truly soft why is it so rare? How often have you seen one for sale?

I really don't know why it's considered so rare and expensive, I've seen a few tests which compared it against other 28mm and it's quite soft wide open. I'm not too sure if it's a QC issue but I haven't seen a sharp picture wide open.

From what I can see, my 35mm f1.4 is considerably sharper than it wide open.