Is the 28mm 1.8 sharper? If price is no object which is better for say Grand Canyon? I have D810
86757
The fast aperture on either of those lenses is going to be unimportant for a landscape shoot such as the grand canyon where you will likely keep your aperture at f8-ff16 to maximize your depth of field. You can accomplish this with a 24-70 2.8, 24-120 f4 or a variety of others. Having said that, the 24 1.4(which I use) is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses and except for the price has no real negatives. The 28 1.8 is a nice budget alternative although that extra 4mm might be missed on landscape shoots.
543324
My copy of the Sigma was horrendous. I had to send it back. Ended up buying the 35mm version of the Sigma (the new Artisan series) and that one's MUCH sharper than the equivalent Canon 1.4.
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
1939650
The 28-300 is more of an all around lens. It is powerful enough for both wide angle and telephoto. The difference of the f stops is not that drastic. I have the 28-300 and used it only in Africa for two weeks and have hundreds of great pictures, many that the 70-200 could not produce.
1561297
Get the IS version. The extra $ are well spent; I have regretted it each time I bought a lower version of a lens and with a great 5D you would be better off with less lens and more quality.
75885
I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor... » Read More I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. « Show Less
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
558459
This lens is second to none. It has great contrast and clarity even at f/2.8. It has low distortion, focuses quickly, accepts filters, and works on full-frame cameras as well as "cropped sensor" DX ones. And if you hit someone with it, they'll probably go down. If you have a DX camera, you can save money by compromising on some of those features. Tokina's 16-50 f/2.8 DX lens is well-regarded and perhaps the closest to the Nikon 17-35. It's supposedly sharp and has good contrast both wide open and stopped down. It's solidly built. Landscape shooters like it. $600 Nikon's 12-24 f/4G DX lens is also very good. It might be too wide for you. $1000 Nikon's 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DX is good, though not in the same class. $675 Note that I have experience only with the 17-35 (bought used). The rest is based on conversations with people who own those lenses.
474710
I have been looking into buying one of the two as well. One of my interests is birds. The have the highest zoom Nikon 36 zoom and canon 35 zoom and all in one piece. Does anyone use either for birding?Thank you!
987891
I used this lens on a trip to hawaii and was very pleased with the landscapes it produced. I sold mine recently for the 20mm 1.8g which goes for just a 100$ more. Both great choices for a landscape.
423679
If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy! If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original... » Read More If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy! « Show Less
1357472
I can't compare image quality to the 28-70, but I am happy with the quality. I would really miss the 24mm if I had the 28-70. It is solid and relatively heavy, but is does not have VR which makes it feel fairly compact.
1773171
I agree with Patrick as far as the tilt and shift lens goes and I would agree that it would be a good idea to rent it rather than buy it. I have the 28mm. in question and I love it although it is a bit long on a DX body. For me it is fine on a FX body. The optical quality of the lens is superb as is the clarity and color saturation.I have had several 28's and this is by far the best I have owned.
809308
Yes, although honestly, that will probably be too wide for most of your work there. The canyon is so expansive that you'll probably end up wanting to shoot with a longer lens on most of the time, otherwise the details of the canyon will be too small. I literally just got back from the Grand Canyon and had both the 5D Mark III and the 7D with me. I had the 16-35mm with me for the 5D and the 10-22mm for the 7D. I rarely used either lens, and instead much preferred my 24-70mm on either body.
1856381
Its decent, but with the 20mm 1.8G or 24mm 1.8G, both of those lenses are much better for landscapes than the 18-35mm. The 24mm 1.8G is hands down sharper than both the 20mm 1.8G and 18-35mm. At 24mm's, its the typical landscape lens and it costs the same as this lens. Cons, its a prime and this is a zoom. But, I'd rather scoop a 24mm 1.8G and 35mm 1.8G because primes will always be sharper.