"Jim
MacKenzie" <jim@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote in message
news:3f12e1b8$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
>
"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>
news:beq5fr$htt$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
[...]
>
> ... in short, the AF28mm
>
> would not be my first choice among Nikkor wide-angles (and
>
> even some zoom lenses outperform it...). Used at f11-16, it would be
>
> OK for landscapes; it is not quite wide enough for most architecture;
>
> it would be adequate for group photography (stopped down some),
>
> but a 35mm FL lens may be better for this...
>
Are you thinking of the non-D version, which isn't that great? Popular
>
Photography rated the D the best SLR 28mm lens it had ever tested, and
>
better at some apertures than the best ever tested, which was the Zeiss
>
28/2.8 for the Contax G-series rangefinders.
My 28/2.8D was superior to my
> AF
20-35/2.8D IF at all apertures, and I have no reason to expect my 20-35,
>
which I consider to be stunningly good, is a sub-standard example of its
>
ilk.
No, I
meant all AF Nikkor 28mm f2.8 models, though the D is generally
better
than the non-D... Pop Photo appears to have few concerns about
edge/corner
sharpness in lenses, often commenting that lenses are
"sharp
and contrasty to the corners at all stops" when I know that this
is not
true with many lenses I'm familiar with that they are reviewing.
The
*AF* Nikkor 28mm f2.8 lenses are not particularly good at the
edges
compared with other Nikkor wides, and may not be sharp there
even at
fairly small stops, though the center may be sharp at f2.8. This
is not
"good" performance for me. (See for more:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.)
And, one of my complaints about
the
Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8 is its poor wide-stop edge/corner performance
at some
FLs - the 17-35 is noticeably better, and it is a very good lens
(see it
compared with the 18-35mm Nikkor and Nikkor non-zooms at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html).
Some people don't care about
frame-edge
sharpness; some do...;-)