Difference between Nikkor AF-D 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2 on D810

[longzoom]

Thank you, Erik Lund, finally one user that knows Nikon 28mm f/1.4D!!! I agree about the Leica's system superiority, but i have no money to buy products of Leica brand! I couldn't sell my Nikon lenses to buy Leica lenses, I love them!!!

Oh really? And what about my post? It looks like me only have a real practical knowledge with both lenses on D810! Yeah, wasting of my time for nothing...  LZ

[chambeshi]

Dear Jedi,
I concur with the 2 last posts by MILLIREHM and LongZoom. They have both made a most +ve impression on me in their enthusiasm and sefllessly sharing great experience. They are among many experts here on NG. I for one have only been on this site some months but have learnt more than I can begin to summarize, and it is not stop. Just on this Thread today, is not the clarification on polycarbonate vs temperature extremes Surely, one major Nugget of Wisdom? All these threads weave topics together, and the result is consilient knowledge.

I still rank myself as a novice trying to learn. Like you tell you us, I started  with Nikon film cameras in 1983.... you asked about Zeiss. What appears to be available has been shared "collegially".

Have you chased up the free open links on the www shared above? These alone represent hours of research on just a few lenses, and I have 500+ pages A4 filed and only on the Nikon fit system, which I mine when these questions are posted. I'm sure this is trivial compared to the real sages on NG

kind regards

Woody

[pluton]

However, the main subject of this topic was to know if in low light conditions, of landscapes and of environmental portrait, Nikon 28mm f/1.4 (another solid glass of a time!!) can give something extra, something wonderful and Zeiss no, it was the reason of its f/1.4 at film era, when ISO was only low (today you could shoot at 3200 ISO without problems and the following shoot at 64 ISO).
Excuse for my English.

The Zeiss 28/2 (modern era, ZF ) has pronounced curvature of field wide open.  Therefore, it is poor choice for low-light, wide-aperture shooting of flat or infinity subjects(mountains all at infinity), since the center will be sharp(at f/2, f/2. but the sides will be blurry.  It requires at least f/4 and sometimes f/5.6 to give even sharpness across the frame at infinity focus.  For portraits and other subjects positioned in the center, the side blurring and focus curvature can be used for a good effect.

Just because it is metal doesn't mean it is well-designed.  I have a Zeiss ZF 50/2 Makro(overall, a really nice lens) that has a rear-element group that becomes loose and wobbly because it is [apparently] designed that way.

[Jedi]

you for yourself wrote that you want a solid lens and (as you could read)  i just was telling you that the 28/1,4 as one of the lenses of your choice has got a plast issue, so in case there is off-topic you started it.

This is the beginning of my topic:

"Hello!

Can you report, please, your impressions, your opinions, for your personal experience, about the comparison between the Nikkor AF-D 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2?
Do you prefer Nikon or Zeiss for mountain landascapes and (few) indoor environmental portraits, please?

Nikon 28mm is also famous four its spectacular results in low lights, but Zeiss is Zeiss.....
I would shoot with Nikon D810.

Thank you!!!!"

Clear! Nothing about plastic!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Let the matter be. No need to reiterate.

You have been warned about potential issue concerning the AFD 28/1.4 and chose to pay no attention. The issue relates to plastic.

[Jedi]

Oh really? And what about my post? It looks like me only have a real practical knowledge with both lenses on D810! Yeah, wasting of my time for nothing...  LZ

Hello, you have written: "This Nikkor is a relict from film era. Needs to be closed to 5.6 to be accessibly sharp to its corners. Contrast is on the low side, so, the color, accordingly. Actually, is not very bad even today, but clearly shows its age. Zeiss is simply better of almost every respect, but, vignettes much wide open. Yet, sometimes, into the sun, harder to focus. Please note, it is my experience only! LZ".
Also if you haven't used Nikon 28/1.4 and Zeiss 28/2 with Nikon D810, you could know the spectacular rendering of the Nikon 28/1.4 anyway, if you have done shoots with them with film or with another Dsrl body pro or semipro, aren't you agree? So you could have written: "This Nikkor is a relict from film era. Needs to be closed to 5.6 to be accessibly sharp to its corners. Contrast is on the low side, so, the color, accordingly. Actually, is not very bad even today, but clearly shows its age. Zeiss is simply better of almost every respect, but, vignettes much wide open. Yet, sometimes, into the sun, harder to focus. Please note, it is my experience only! LZ".

[Jedi]

Oh really? And what about my post? It looks like me only have a real practical knowledge with both lenses on D810! Yeah, wasting of my time for nothing...  LZ

Film, D4, D5, D810 you could have seen the nature, the character, the temperament of the 28/1.4D, aren't agree? Why do you have written : "..... wasting my time for nothing..."? Excuse me, I don't understand.... Have I misunderstood?

[Jedi]

The Zeiss 28/2 (modern era, ZF ) has pronounced curvature of field wide open.  Therefore, it is poor choice for low-light, wide-aperture shooting of flat or infinity subjects(mountains all at infinity), since the center will be sharp(at f/2, f/2. but the sides will be blurry.  It requires at least f/4 and sometimes f/5.6 to give even sharpness across the frame at infinity focus.  For portraits and other subjects positioned in the center, the side blurring and focus curvature can be used for a good effect.

Just because it is metal doesn't mean it is well-designed.  I have a Zeiss ZF 50/2 Makro(overall, a really nice lens) that has a rear-element group that becomes loose and wobbly because it is [apparently] designed that way.

Thanks!

[Jedi]

Let the matter be. No need to reiterate.

You have been warned about potential issue concerning the AFD 28/1.4 and chose to pay no attention. The issue relates to plastic.

I don't understand English very well, excuse me. Can you repeat please what's the issue? The issue is for the regulation, the rules of the forum, or about the feature of the Nikon 28/1.4D?

[Jedi]

However, I'm happy to use Zeiss lenses for the wide angles and not Nikon, so Nikon lenses up 70mm, with AF and I respect the choice of all of you!

[Andrea B.]

If a heavy metal lens is dropped, the resulting dents and deformations often harm internal parts of the lens or its glass elements.

If a lightweight polycarbonate(partial) lens is dropped, the resultant "bounce" or crack in the shell often protects the internal elements of the lens and its glass elements.

It's just physics, my darlings, just physics..............

Of course, when lens accidents happen -- and they surely do -- we can't be sure either of the above scenarios will result.


Now, I know that plastic lens mounts are not specifically addressed in this thread. But I came across an article which relates to the "plastic" discussion in this thread. Roger Cicala over at LensRentals.com sees literally thousands of lenses pass through his business. He has written about plastic lens mounts versus metal lens mounts at this link:  Assumptions, Expectations and Plastic Mounts
I think some of you might be surprised by the results.


Mamma Lee would like to remind everyone that when a poster is using English as a Second Language in an international community, then we must all be generous, kind and supportive in our interpretation of the post.

[Airy]

Roger Cicala over at LensRentals.com sees literally thousands of lenses pass through his business. He has written about plastic lens mounts versus metal lens mounts at this link:  Assumptions, Expectations and Plastic Mounts

Excellent publication, based on facts. Thanks for the link.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I don't understand English very well, excuse me. Can you repeat please what's the issue? The issue is for the regulation, the rules of the forum, or about the feature of the Nikon 28/1.4D?

The 28/1.4. Should be obvious.

[Jedi]

The 28/1.4. Should be obvious.

Ah, ok!! I I was thinking to alongside the Nikon 28/1.4D to the Zeiss 28/2 (which is already in my kit) for this peculiarity, but it doesn't seem to be necessary...., i have understood......

[chambeshi]

It's just physics, my darlings, just physics..............

Very valuable insights, inclusive of tact. Link on plastic lens- mounts; about to chase up that WWW url. i have the 28-200 G zoom with aspherical boost etc, which i've yet to test as a "fieldwork" lens to record sampling sites....

thanks very much

yours gratefully

woody