Nikkor 28mm f/1.4E

[Fons Baerken]

So far the first review on the 28mm f/1.4e i have come across
Website from Horatio Tan, Streetsilhouettes

http://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2017/7/5/nikon-28mm-f14e-how-is-the-35mm-f14-still-a-thing

[David H. Hartman]

I've read part of the article and in general I agree on the 28mm lens for candid shooting. I'll finish the article now that I'm home and add more here.

---

I started on my phone and now I'm at home...

Back in the '70s I didn't want three lenses for no better reason than they were the typical lenses an amateur would buy, these were a 50/2.0 or 1.8, 135/3.5 and a 28/3.5. If they had a fatter budget then the lenses would be a 50/1.4, 135/2.8 and 28/2.0.

Now when shooting candid photos of family in a close space I found a 35mm lens too wide and not owning a 28mm lens I'd use a 24mm. Then in the darkroom I'd crop back to a 28mm field of view. Now having read Bjørn's review of the 28/2.0 AI and this in particular: "This lens is unusually resistant to flare and ghosting and eminently suitable for shooting directly into the sun." I decided to buy a 28/2.0 AIS. This lens is to me reasonably fast for the film era so I find some disagreement with the article. I won't bother to go into where I disagree but I do find the 28mm focal length quite useful and desirable.

Dave

[Some candid shots I think of where I cropped from 24mm to about 28mm were of two people, a cousin and his wife. I backed up as far as I could to avoid the "fiddler crab syndrome." The shot was indoors on Tri-X.]

[chris dees]

Pretty positive review.

[longzoom]

Everyone has his/hers rights to post here anything concerning about any camera/lens system. So someone may have his/hers different opinion on such the posts. As for me, any 28 lens is not for close portraiture. Even great bokeh is not good enough excuse to turn beautiful lady into hands-shuffle monster. 35 looks way better to me, based on Horatio  own images. The new 105 is not ultimate portrait lens, wide open at least, cose I need BOTH eyes, not direct front or profile only. While DF and 800 cameras need updates, out of questions, the 810 sensor is still the best one today, with its beautifully wide DR and unbeatable low ISO performance. Leica/28 combo looks terrible harsh, with its extremely narrow DR, under given light and deep shadows, of course. New Sony, with its low-resolving, created for speed 24 MP sensor, can not compete with old, but still great 810, with new28, or, with new stunning 105 lenses. New Canons, with its traditionally low color/contrast ratio lenses, are good for weddings, what it was created for, mostly. People, who using Canons for sport events, like its long lenses. I am not able to comment that, due to my own limited experience here. So, while Horatio had made a great job with this new 28 lens, his text (and images) is full with contradictions, as for me, personally, of course.  LZ

[David H. Hartman]

As for me, any 28 lens is not for close portraiture.

+1

Environmental portraiture but not portraiture as I think of it. One meter with any lens does unpleasant things to the face. I like about two meters. I believe the distance that looks natural to most is set by social norms. I find most of the photographs of the lady unflattering.

Dave

[LZ, I also agree with most every other observation.]

[Akira]

I also agree.

[pluton]

If I was promoting the new 28 lens, I wouldn't send people to that review.
If the rendering is styled after the 35/1.4 G, it's good.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

+1

Environmental portraiture but not portraiture as I think of it. One meter with any lens does unpleasant things to the face. I like about two meters. I believe the distance that looks natural to most is set by social norms. I find most of the photographs of the lady unflattering.

Dave

Cannot more than agree!!

[John Geerts]

If I was promoting the new 28 lens, I wouldn't send people to that review.

Exactly. It is more a personal blog than a real lens review.

[Macro_Cosmos]

1.4 wide open for portraits of humans? Me no likey.
This is subjective, I know.
I personally find 1.4 to have too thin of a depth of field, such that when focused on the eye, the nose tip goes out of focus. This just looks extremely weird and kind of creepy to me. I understand that some people may like it, but I'm going to theorise that most people in fact find it odd as I do.
This is also the one reason I wasn't at all excited about the 105/1.4E. It's a great lens for reproduction and other creative uses, but the portraits of humans shot wide open just gives me an "ehh what" face. At f/2 though, it's perfect! I personally find the 200/2 and 300/2.8 to be lovely portrait lenses, and they both have the exact perspective distortion (compression too?) I like. Eyes hair and nose in focus wide open, the background melted away like ice cream in a glutton's mouth. Yummy! 

[Airy]

Portraits are mostly shot (in my case, and supposing head and some shoulder) around f/5.6, irrespective of the FL, for the exact reasons you mention, while keeping a certain amount of subject isolation. Special effects at f/2.8, and a few shots at f/2.2, my practical lower limit with the 85/1.4G, e.g. for having two eyes standing out (frontal shot of course) and the rest getting reasonable mellow and fuzzy.

Such framing is a no-no with WA (watermelon-shaped heads, no thanks). Framing half body and with some precautions, 24-28mm are still usable, in which case the aperture can become wider. Please note that at least one relatively famous photographer (signing "JR") did a full book of women portraits using a 28mm lens. Title is "women are heroes". The portraits are not meant to make ordinary life heroes look like catwalk bipeds. In that sense, they are very successful. I guess this canonist would have been pleased to use the 28/1.4 E, but sure not wide open.

[Jack Dahlgren]

How do I add to what has already been said except to say that the 28mm length is useful to capture groups and close action. Neither of these are in evidence here. David's point that it is for environmental portraits is a good one. Unfortunately the author of that review wanted to blur out the environment and other people. To me this is the wrong instinct. Wider lenses tend to put people in an environment.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

While I don't like the head and shoulders shot made with 28mm (full frame), I don't find there to be an issue when it is used to show a full body and some environment. For example, the third (?) balcony shot (where the person is visible from face to the knees) looks good to my eye.

I would also not photograph with the face so close to the top of the frame as some examples shown (I would leave some margin around the head). However, if the photographer is used to shooting video with the widescreen format, it may be necessary to bring the subject that close to get enough magnification and this can then lead to a style of composition in still photography as well. Notice all the shots are in landscape orientation.

However, aesthetic tastes vary and today more pics than any other show someone at arm's distance from a wide angle lens, being portrayed somewhere as a sign that they are alive and posted for the whole world to see. The popularity of the "selfie" taken without a stick can't avoid from affecting what is considered "normal" aesthetically. Doesn't affect me much though. 

I think for showing a full body in environment a 28mm is fine. It can be at f/1.4 too, the body will mostly will be within the depth of field considering the size of the subject.

The same applies to the 105/1.4; the wide aperture is perfect for full body portraits with slightly blurred surroundings though the working distance would be a bit long for my taste. For stage photography (concert, dance etc.) it is also perfect.

The full body portrait offers a lot of creative possibilities not present in a head shot. It can show more about the person, what they do, how they wear themselves, rather than just how their face looks like.

[Akira]

However, aesthetic tastes vary and today more pics than any other show someone at arm's distance from a wide angle lens, being portrayed somewhere as a sign that they are alive and posted for the whole world to see. The popularity of the "selfie" taken without a stick can't avoid from affecting what is considered "normal" aesthetically. Doesn't affect me much though. 

Good point.  I realize the angle of view of the cameras integrated in the newer smartphones are wider for the "environmental selfies" that contains more than one people.  Also, with the increasingly popular action  cameras, people would be more accustomed to (or they don't care anymore about) the perspective distortion of the (super-) wideangle shots.

[CS]

Good point.  I realize the angle of view of the cameras integrated in the newer smartphones are wider for the "environmental selfies" that contains more than one people.  Also, with the increasingly popular action  cameras, people would be more accustomed to (or they don't care anymore about) the perspective distortion of the (super-) wideangle shots.

Some people, and that would include me, at times, like the distortion provided by a close up with a wide angle.

Nikon F100/20-35 f.2.8 on Fuji film (probably 400 speed). I titled this one "Did you say cookie?". Lucy really loved her cookies. OTOH, every bullmastiff that I've ever met shared that view.