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

[PedroS]

Lenses are precision optic devices. They are not meant to be used like hammers or to be dropped.
Of course, sooner than later some will fall, but surviving the fall is a matter of luck.

I will invite you to drop from 1m a plastic against a metal lens into concrete floor. Afterwards, maybe you'll have a different approach.

A lot of moons ago, during an anatomy lecture, the teacher held two skulls, one from an adult and one from a child. Dropped both from ~2m. The adult one smashed, the child one rebounded like a ball. You know why? Because of the fontanela (closed at adult age) could absorb the shock, and rebound due to plastic/elastic properties...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Photographic gear are tools thus they have commonality with hammers. Yet they are badly suitable for such service.

Treat the photo gear with the respect it deserves, that a better approach.

[Jedi]

Plastic against metal......, plastic against metal......, plastic against metal......., yet.....

Bye bye!!!!!

[chambeshi]

A lot of moons ago, during an anatomy lecture, the teacher held two skulls, one from an adult and one from a child. Dropped both from ~2m. The adult one smashed, the child one rebounded like a ball. You know why? Because of the fontanela (closed at adult age) could absorb the shock, and rebound due to plastic/elastic properties...

the strengths of cartilage, pre-ossification vs ossified!
what a wonderful example 

[Frank Fremerey]

For anyone still in doubt I can, from extensive experience in the field, say, that the current AF-S G Series is very sturdy well build.

The only exception I am aware of seems to be the 2.8/60 Micro which seems to have a quality issue in the AF-System. In this forum we found 3 of these suddenly stoped working. In my case the repair was roughly half of the lens price. I might have done something wrong to break it by accidentialy activating AF via button while turning the focussing manually at the same time.

28mm? For me 28 is over. It is OK on DX, but on FX it either feels to long I take the 24 or too short I take the 35.

I had the Sigma EX 1.8/28 which was very sharp but harsh in skin, unsharp parts and transitions. Not recommended. And I loved the 2.0/28 NC-Auto Aid. Switching to FX the lens got no use anymore and was sold.

[chambeshi]

here's a test report i'd logged. Somewhat disappointing news for the patriot. On re-reading, i now remember this pushed me toward the 25 f2 Zeiss, with pancake 28 2.8 Voigt' also an option.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/585-zeisszf2528ff

summary appended below

i've no more to add to this entertaining thread :-) have a great week 

>>>
As a German website we'd love to report that we've seen another great Zeiss lens (home, sweet home after all) but at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding (or maybe in the "Kraut" here) and it just doesn't taste all that good. The Zeiss Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF performed pretty good in our Nikon APS-C review but it didn't impress during our full format lab tests. The resolution capabilities are simply sub-standard for such an expensive prime lens (@ ~800EUR/US$). The border quality is quite poor at large aperture settings. Same goes for the heavy vignetting here. The situation improves at medium apertures but the quality remains comparatively moderate. Lateral CAs are fairly low which helps a bit in terms of subjective quality perception. The amount of barrel distortion is about average for a prime lens in this class.
So, technically, the Distagon 25 is no doubt the weakest wide angle of the Z-family and it's no wonder that, according to the rumor mill, Zeiss considerd to redesign the lens. However, there's one feature of the lens we haven't discussed, yet.

The Zeiss lens is capable of focusing down to just 17cm (min. object to front element distance: 6cm) which is a fairly unique feature in an 25mm lens. It is this feature, that despite its optical flaws makes the lens fun to use in the field nonetheless. The unusual and unique look of close up images taken with a fast wide angle lens defines the niche where the Distagon 25 shines.

Just like the rest of its family, the Zeiss lens is built to the highest standards. Some users may complain about the lack of AF but, frankly, this is usually a non-issue for an ultra-wide lens. The focus confirmation is available in the viewfinder and in very critical (for example close focus) scenes Live-View can give you a helping hand.

[Roland Vink]

The original question was about the Zeiss 28mm f/2, not the 25mm models ...

[chambeshi]

The original question was about the Zeiss 28mm f/2, not the 25mm models ...

apologies - Monday am.....
here's the correct link, confirms curvature at faster than f4 as summarized above

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/586-zeisszf2820ff?start=2

We weren't really impressed by the T* 25mm f/2.8 but the Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2 ZF plays in a very different (better) quality league. The lens is sharp straight from f/2 and it reaches excellent quality levels around f/5.6. There's some field curvature at f/2 and f/2.8 which may be a problem in certain scenes (out-of-focus corners) though. Lateral and longitudinal CAs are moderate and nothing to worry about for most subjects. The moderate degree of distortions is about average for a prime lens in this class. A real weakness is the annoyingly high amount of vignetting at large aperture settings. The bokeh is not the most pleasant one, but still ok for a wide angle lens.
Just like the rest of its family, the Zeiss lens is built to the highest standards. Some users may complain about the lack of AF but this isn't really a significant flaw for a wide-angle lens. The focus confirmation is available in the viewfinder and in very critical (for example close focus) scenes Live-View can give you the needed guidance. That said, it remains a bit of an anachronism these days.

The price level is quite steep but the performance level is accordingly impressive.

[simsurace]

I had the chance to try both lenses very briefly but I didn't buy any of them.
For your intended usage, I would favor the Zeiss (contrast, drawing style, bulk), but please be aware of the caveats regarding field curvature. You have to learn to use this to your advantage in landscape shots.
I don't think that any of the two lenses you asked about is truly optimal for your use case. But between the two, I would choose the Zeiss.

I like the look and feel of traditionally-built metal lenses, but I'm wary of confusing aesthetics with robustness or durability. I am more careful with my metal lenses and maybe I'm less likely to drop them. But they scratch more easily and when they are dropped, they are almost certainly going to be bent. In fact, I managed to stupidly drop my ZF 35/2 from 1.5m onto stone tiles last summer; the lens hood was badly bent out of shape and there was slight misalignment that had to be fixed. If you're interested in optical quality besides look and feel, restricting yourself to all-metal lenses is not wise. As others have suggested, I think the AF-S 28/1.8 would probably beat both of your suggested lenses for your use case, and there are many more lenses with similar focal lengths that may be worth trying out.

[JJChan]

I added some pics and thoughts a few weeks ago when OP wanted to know difference between Zeiss and AFS 28mm. I think thread got lost as it died there and then.

Both have field curvature. Zeiss more microcontrast. Af extremely useful even at 28mm.

I like that focal length - learnt it on 28Ti and now Coolpix A too. I think iPhone generation has made this a semi default viewpoint - witness easy availability of 28mm with most systems and fixed point and shoots (Leica Q)

Note that Zeiss although metal and heavy are also potentially prone to failure of CPU.
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dUXD

If you really want longevity in Nikon, old AI etc is the way to go.

[Erik Lund]

Well,,, yes the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 Ais is still in production and will definitely fit the bill

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 28/2.8 AIS also a lens that is easy to get second hand, as the production volume is significant. Roland Vink's page claims > 200 000 of these lenses have been made.