The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 G is a fast wide-angle lens designed for use on Nikon's FX format (full-frame) DSLRs. It uses two aspherical elements in its 11 element / 9 group construction, along with Nano Crystal Coat to combat flare and ghosting. It can also be used on DX format cameras, giving a 42mm-equivalent 'normal' angle of view. Its fast maximum aperture of F1.8 make this lens useful in poor light and 'wide open' it is possible to achieve good subject/background separation at close focusing distances.
Nikon AF-S 28mm f/1.8 G Lens
Already own this?
This item is in your gearlist!
|Lens type||Prime lens|
|Max Format size||35mm FF|
|Focal length||28 mm|
|Lens mount||Nikon F (FX)|
|Number of diaphragm blades||7|
|Special elements / coatings||2 aspherical lens elements and lens elements with Nano Crystal Coat|
|Minimum focus||0.25 m (9.84″)|
|Motor type||Ring-type ultrasonic|
|Full time manual||Yes|
|Weight||330 g (0.73 lb)|
|Diameter||73 mm (2.87″)|
|Length||81 mm (3.17″)|
|Filter thread||67 mm|
|Hood product code||HB-64|
Amazing Gem of a lens
I've always seem to love a 35mm with an 85mm on me to walk the streets while on holiday. I find I can do most anything with one on the camera and one in my pocket or belt pouch. Since the early 1960s I've always owned and loved the 35mm length. I still have the first auto Takumar I ever purchased used as a sub teen from lawn mowing money. A couple of months ago, I was buying a new camera for a friend and was looking over the shelves considering Nikon's 35 f/1.4, wondering if I should spend so ...
A very nice lens!
I've never been a big fan of normal to wides. Nothing against, just didn't particularly appeal to me. I thought it a bit of a necessary evil for indoor low light shooting in situations where a flash wouldn't be appropriate. I debated between the Sigma 35 1.4 and the Nikon 28 1.8g. I thought the 28 was a focal length better suited to me, but check out the specs and tests on the Sigma! I was leaning towards the Sigma, but decided to rent the Nikkor for a week. Well, fair to say I am now a fan ...
I was in search of a short lens, because I was often disapointed: The quality of data shot with wide angles on FX is often poor. It gets poorer and poorer if you need higher mpix or greater prints. I always use primes. So my dealer gave me one Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G for a test. If I would klike it, I could keep it. – And I didn't gave back: Shure – 28mm gives you not too much space, but the pics have a lot of sharpness, bright contrast and lots of details.
Street Photography and Landscape Prime
I bought a D610 not long ago and my goal is to have a nice small set of primes—as in two or three—because I like how my creativity works, when I'm limited like that. I'm planning on buying the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G, I already have the 50mm f/1.8G, but I plan to sell it, and now I need to be sure about what my second lens will be. So far I'm torn between two lenses: the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and the Nikon 28mm f/1.8G . The Nikon is cheaper, the Sigma is sharper wide open, the Sigma also handles vignetting better, the Nikon is that little bit wider, which might make the difference for landscape photographs, the Sigma is heavier but better built, and so on... I've read too much technical information about each lens. I could really use some personal experiences and opinions about the lenses. Have I overlooked some key difference?
I absolutely love, LOVE my 28 1.8G. I think it is a superb all-round wide angle with a unique image signature. Really nice crisp detail for landscapes, and up close it has a definite 3D look (cliche I know but it's there!) and smooth bokeh. I've never had any problems with field curvature shooting landscapes with it. The curvature is there if you look for it (I did some tests), but in normal use it has never caused me to lose a shot or even been at all noticeable. I therefore don't agree that it requires you to work at it to get used to the field curvature, such as it is. I had the Sigma for a while - it is definitely noticeably sharper at close range. For landscapes it was closer to a draw. It has a different look, more literal, less romantic. Continue Reading
To the OP: I think 28 is more of a landscape lens than 35, given contemporary aesthetics and the fact you can crop down and still have many megapixels in the image. Why would you sell the 50? You won't get much for it and, on FF IMO it is incomparably versatile. Since the Sigma is more expensive, you won't need cash from the 50 if you buy the 28. I shot film for decades with a 28 and 85 high speed pair OR just went out with the 50. Worked great for my approach. Continue Reading
The Nikon 28 has a stronger field curvature signature, something you have to get used to and learn to handle. The Sigma feels like a sturdier, higher quality lens - though isn't weather-sealed either. For landscapes its fairly equal, if you get to know the 28 really well you can get great results with possibly slightly higher sharpness at long range, the Sigma is very good at landscape range, but truly phenomenal at closer range - silly sharp - which may or may not help for street, depending on how you like to shoot. The Sigma handles flare less well than the Nikon. For an all-rounder I think the Sigma is better, I have some great sharp landscapes shot with it, and whilst I may pick up a Zeiss 21 2.8 distagon for the wider angles and microcontrast, the Sigma has been stellar so far. Continue Reading
Wide Angle debate; Nikon 28mm f/1.4, 16-35mm f/4, or 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5??
I've just recently purchased my first full-frame camera, the Nikon D610, and I am in love. I made this fairly large purchase in anticipation of my summer trip to Yosemite, Lake Tahoe, Bryce & Zion in Utah, and the Grand Canyon. I'm looking to shoot some incredible landscapes and do some startrails/milky way photos. My debate is that my best friend has the 28, and he rarely ever takes that off of his camera. I'm sort of looking for a really good all-around lens, but I'm not particularly looking at a zoom lens. This purchase is about getting the best lens I can for this once in a lifetime trip, but money is still an object and the 16-35mm would be the most I could spend on a lens. I've spent a whole lot of time looking at reviews and sample images from all of these lenses but I'd really like to hear what other people have to say! So, which do you see as best and why? Nikon 28mm f/1.4, 16-35mm f/4, or 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5? Thank you guys so much for your time and input! :)
I have not shot with either the 28 or the 18-35. However, I do have the 16-35 and it is an excellent zoom for landscape shooting. It is especially sharp and at it's best in the 20-20mm range which is where I shoot most landscapes at. I also use it for interiors when travelling, like inside churches and castles etc, and using it all the way down to 16mm where it does have distortion but is easily correctable in post process. VR is also very handy in low light inside buildings and at night. I have never had an image ruined due to not being able to correct distortion. The lens is actually very good in the sub 20mm area especially stopped down. Once you stop the lens down to f5.6 and further, the lens really starts to shine and at f8 and f11 it really is a wonderful landscape lens. Let's face it, f8-f11 is where you will be mostly using it. I also have the 14-24 and whilst it is a legendary lens and is worthy of that monicker, I prefer to take the 16-35 on my travels due to it's longer ... Continue Reading
Given the subject matter you intend to be shooting plus what you already own, I'd pick the 18-35/3.5-4.5G - but don't use it beyond 28mm - let your 24-85 handle that focal length. Reason for this is that for a lot of the places you're going, when you want wide, you'll want something that performs really well in the 18-24mm range, and that's where I feel the 18-35 is the best of the lot. I like the 28/1.8G prime a lot, but it wouldn't be my first choice due to focal length relative to what you're going to be likely shooting. Remember also that for landscape work you'll be stopped down a bit anyway, which narrows the quality differences between the lenses a bit. -m Continue Reading
New Prime or Smaller Second Body for Walk Around and Travel
Hello all. I posted this in another forum but I realized it belongs here. I decided to rent the Nikon 24mm f1.4G and the 35mm f1.4G to see which I would prefer for a wide to semi wide prime to use on my D800E. Deciding which one I want more is another discussion in itself (honestly I like them both for their merits). Anyway, for the price of either of these I could invest in a second smaller body, like the Fuji X-T1 with a somewhat equivalent field of view lens. It would cost more to go this route but I'm truly getting a more walk around camera and lens. My fiancé recently got an Olympus OMD EM1 and she loves it. It has great ergonomics but I haven't played around with it enough to know if it's for me. Here's the hardest part for me: I love my D800E. So I'm biased towards a prime as mentioned above. I haven't checked out the 28mm f1.8G but I don't have any 1.4 lenses so part of this exercise was to see what 1.4 is like. I do like the 24mm over the 35mm but I think the 35mm is a more ...
i wouldnt buy into a new system just yet. the 24G is one lens that i just love love and that would be my suggestion is go for it the 24. its really versatile in a sense that it is the true story teller of a lens. and it can almost be used macro-like since its MFD is just inches. you can wait for the sig 24A if you wish...but from what ive seen the Sig A series lenses have a very sterile rendering to them. not a bad thing but i came to realize how much nicer i like the overall colors and rendition of the nikon originals. Continue Reading
OP: I have faced your same dilemma several times in the past months. Here is a test for you. When you look at the photos from your D800E in, say, Lightroom, do you automatically zoom to 100% to marvel at the resolution? I know I do, with my D800. If that is the case you will never be completely satisfied with a lessor resolution sensor again. Don't kid yourself. I love the Fuji. Had an XPro 1 and the three primes. Yes, it was small and light, but you still have to mess with changing lenses, etc. If I were to get a small carry around camera, it would be the GR. However, I would take it out and regret that I did not have my D800 with me! (I have access to my wife's Sony RX100, and have never tried it.) I have both the 24mm and the 35mm. My advice is to go with the 24mm. It is much more versatile, and plays well with a 24/50/85 or 100 kit. The 35mm, also a stellar lens, is best used when you want to go out with one lens only, or maybe the 35/85 twosome... Continue Reading
Have your own question?
"No registration or "warranty" card is included or needed with a Nikon D-SLR or Coolpix camera. Keep your original, dated proof of purchase from the Authorized Nikon Inc. dealer in case warranty service is ever needed. These products do include either a mail-in form or a paper with a web link to our registration page:
It's advised to register your product with Nikon so that we can send you information about future updates or service issues that may arise.
Nikkor lenses come with a standard one year warranty and Nikon Inc. lenses sold by authorized Nikon Inc. dealers will have a Nikon Inc. Five Year Extension. To register for the five year extension, one copy of the included form must be mailed in as indicated. Keep the Customer copy of the form as well as the original proof of purchase (sales receipt)."
DPReview GearShop is an authorized Nikon dealer in the United States.