Cannot decide between two lenses - help needed :)

[Zang]

Hi all,

The pictures were taken under the same lighting condition and similar aperture setting. The lighting was incident from a ceiling lamp. No post processing, just slight white balance adjustment. Which one does your vote go to?

Cheers,
Zang

[Birna Rørslett]

Perspective is different and I assume so are the respective focal lengths.

The first image is much more pleasing to my eye.

[MEPER]

First one for me.

But the 2nd image is a bit more challenging for the lens as there are white bagground which causes some blue/cyan color cast.

[Peter Forsell]

If you want to shoot tight portraits like these with the new lens, then the first one is the better choice. If you want to shoot something else, then the jury is still out.

[Jakov Minić]

number one.

[Akira]

Limited to this particular comparison, I would throw in yet another vote for the first one.

However, I don't think this comparison alone is enough to choose between the lenses.  The wider lens for the second image could be better suited for the environmental portraits.

[Airy]

#1 is the better image for me too. I am however unable to tell the "better lens": if your purpose is close-up shots of people, the second lens can be excluded (distance too close because FL too short) unless you are happy with cropping. I concur with Akira's remark.

[Frank Fremerey]

white balance depends on scene colors. The first photo is blue in the BG so more orange in the face = more pleasing skin tones ... to judge lenses you need the SAME SCENE!!!

[Zang]

Thanks all!

Good observation, Frank. The second one was taken about 1 hour later (after I cut the hair for the son ). The blueish floor in the first one came from the late daylight projection from the window. The light affected the floor only, though. The person's face was lit by the ceiling lamp only, I was sure.

The two lenses have the same focal length. I moved around a bit so the perspective may seem to be different. The lighting was pretty difficult and the lamp was quite dark. I needed to lean my hand on another chair to prevent shaking. In 100% crop, the first picture is a bit shaken when the second one looks OK. I'll probably repeat the test with more reliable set up and closer lighting conditions.

However, your votes are so far aligned with mine what is "shocking truth" to me The first lens edges the second in almost every situation. The more difficult lighting, the bigger difference you'll see. You may be curious about what lenses were used. The first one is $40 Nikkor 28mm f3.5 (recently overhauled by me) shot wide open at f3.5. The second one is the "million dollar" Contax Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 bought brand new in 90's, shot at f4

Cheers,
Zang

[rosko]

Number 1 too.

Warmer tones and more pleasant background.

It's not exactly the same point of view, I guess ?

[Zang]

Number 1 too.

Warmer tones and more pleasant background.

It's not exactly the same point of view, I guess ?

No, these were taken handheld one hour one after another

Cheers,
Zang

[MEPER]

The 28/3.5 is not a bad lens. Probably many was produced so easy to find on the used market.
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0012/index.htm

I found it also good reversed for macro work.

[Bent Hjarbo]

Just found one in my drawer, will certainly try it out on the Z6 or Df, as it is not Ai converted

[Zang]

Just found one in my drawer, will certainly try it out on the Z6 or Df, as it is not Ai converted

Mine is the AIS one. Not sure if it is any better than the earlier versions.

[Bent Hjarbo]

I have the Nikkor-H, but according to Rolands page it should have the same optical formula, sans coating