Gérald Poirier wrote in message <34f05ada.3212541@nntp.enter-net.com>...

>The price difference is staggering to say the least.
>
>Since I don't intend to use the lens in 'critically fast'
>occasions, the lack of AF on the f2 is not so bad. Then
>again... who knows...
>
>The weight of the 1.4 seems to balance well on a AF body, so
>one owner reports, so my apprehension of NO HANDHELD slow
>shots (1/30-1/60) seems a bit off...
>
>Both lenses DO go to f22 now don't they ?
[...]
>What about the quality of the lenses ? I'm sure the 1.4 is
>super nice but then the f2 must be close ? And I'm not a
>fanatic when it comes to minimal differences in distortion
>or whatever... geezzz
[...]

For me, AF is not an issue (I don't like it...;-), but image
quality is... If you will rarely use the 28mm at stops much
wider than f5.6 (remember that you can hand-hold short FL
lenses at slower than normal speeds, and DOF can be sufficient
at fairly wide stops...), the f2 and f1.4 28mm Nikkors are
excellent, as are the -AIS- f2.8 and -AI/AIS- f3.5 (I am not
fond of the pre-AI f3.5, the pre-AIS f2.8, or the f2.8 E or
AF - and the f2.8 AF-D is not outstanding at the edges until
it is well stopped down). If you want to use f2.8, I would
choose the f1.4 or the f2.8 -AIS- (though some samples of the
f2 are also good at f2.8). If sharpness is a concern, I would
avoid using f22 - and f16 will provide universal DOF with
distant subjects. BTW, you may want to look at my Nikkor
evaluation list, under "I babble" on my web page...
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com