Just a quick comment here should a mirrorless user read this review. I currently own a Z8 and Z9 after a few years with two Z6’s. I had borrowed this lens from NPS back in summer of 2018. I lusted for this lens. But between the new mirrorless news that summer and cost I held off. Over the next few years I migrated completely to mirrorless lenses, sold off adapters and so on. Earlier this year I got the itch for a fast wide angle prime. I’m not a 35 guy and the Z28 2.8 2.8 just didn’t cut it for me for pro work (24-70 2.8 is so much better). So I traded the 28 2.8 for a FTZII adapter and bought a refurb 28 1.4E. I couldn’t be happier. On mirrorless it’s silent and quick. It’s AF is a bit chattery in video, so ill stick to thr 24-70 2.8 for video. I shoot editorial and also weddings and now I do bridal prep with the 28 on the Z8 and 50 1.2 on the Z9. It’s my favourite combo in a long time. Resolution is amazing; it holds its own, and then some, with the Z mirrorless lenses. Rendering is fantastic. If you’re on the fence or waiting for the 35 1.2, you won’t be disappointed. And we can also be sure it and an adapter will be a lot less than the 35 1.2 will be.
Grzegorz
April 17, 2022 11:28 am
Hi, Nasim. Is that Turkey in your photographs? I’d love to go there… maybe this year!
My apologies for such a late response – I only saw it after I started to update the lens review. Most photos are from Turkey and Jordan. There are also some photos from Wyoming’s “Hell’s Half Acre”.
Larry
September 1, 2020 11:49 am
Is the Nikon 28mm f1.4e lens a good lens for landscape photography? It looks like for apertures of 5.6 to 8.0 where I would be using the lens at should be really good.
Yes, it is good for anything really. One of the sharpest lenses we’ve ever tested.
Allan
May 14, 2020 12:53 am
I’m seriously thinking of purchasing this lens before I go to Lord Howe Island as it it’s resolution and other characteristics make it a prime choice “ if you will forgive the pun “! I figure it would be useful in Mountain photography as well as street photography and would be a great lens to take “ as I work through my travel “ bucket list “..!
DW
May 18, 2019 2:53 am
Just picked up the 28 1.4E and its everything you have said in this review. I currently own the Sigma Art 24-35 which is also a fine lens and a great buy, but the 28 1.4 is much better. The cropability factor of this lens with its much higher resolution is huge. I can even shoot this in DX mode on a 36MP sensor which extends this up to 42mm or 1.2X on a D810 for 34mm. The autofocus accuracy is better than the Sigma even with a USB dock. Thanks for providing some of the highest quality review information on the web for these lenses.
Michael Moretti
July 12, 2018 5:07 pm
Another well-written and informative review… thanks, Nasim! I realize that I’m late to this conversation, but I’m hopeful that you are still following it. Specifically, I own a very good copy of the 28/1.4D and I’m interested to learn if there might be a compelling reason to upgrade to the new version. For landscape, I’m primarily shooting a Zeiss 2/25 (on my D850). My 28/1.4D is mainly for street, usually on my Df, but lately more often on my D850. Thank you for any comments you might have on this topic.
Michael, I apologize for a late response. The 28mm f/1.4E is a significantly sharper lens compared to the older f/1.4D – it is a night and day difference in terms of resolution potential and edge performance.
JK
May 16, 2018 12:08 pm
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for providing an in-depth review of this lens. You had me sold on it except for your comments re bokeh, specifically that it produces “onion-shaped” bokeh due to the aspherical elements and not “rounded” as afforded by the 85mm f/1.4 that excludes aspherical completely. You concluded “if you are looking for a lens that shows beautiful background highlights, then look elsewhere.” Can you please explain what you mean by background highlights? Are you referring to comparisons of 85mm 1.4 bokeh? Are there any side-by-side sample images?
While I’m aware that no wide or near-wide angle prime will produce the same bokeh as the 85mm 1.4, I’m trying to match it is closely as possible for large group portraiture. Would you still recommend this lens over the 35mm 1.4?
Appreciate your input, thanks.
Rendell
February 4, 2018 7:22 am
Nasim, Your review is spot on. I purchased a used copy from B&H back in January and have used it for 2 weddings. Only thing wrong was that it needed +12 focus on all of my camera bodies. Something that I have noticed is that some images had an amazing pop to them that others didn’t. I stared at them in awe… wide angle Images unlike any I’ve seen from any of my other lenses before. After reading your review and looking back at the data, I found that they were shot at f/2.8….the sweet spot that you have confirmed! I’ve found that this lens works really well for the first/last dance as it captures the surroundings quite well without being too wide. It also works well for preparation photos if you are working in a nice dressing area. I have used the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 since it was introduced. After comparing the same images from both lenses, the 28mm f/1.4 is much sharper at both close and long distances. I like the 28 1.4 so much that my 24mm f/1.4 and my Sigma 35 1.4 pretty much stay in the bag now unless I specifically need those focal lengths. The 28mm f/1.4 and 105 mm f/1.4 are both amazing new lenses by Nikon.
Thanks for posting the review and helping me realize the f/2.8 “sweet spot”.
I’m considering the 28mm f/1.4 E as I am a wedding photographer also. I am interested specifically in bokeh – do you have any input you could share with your experience using the lens? I know Nasim, as others, have praised this lens, however the comment re the bokeh looking “onion-like” due to the aspherical elements has me thinking twice. It seems it will not produce as flattering bokeh as the 35mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4, do you agree? Please keep in mind I am primarily interested in using this lens for large group portraiture, e.g. posed wedding party and family photos, and I am trying to achieve *as close as possible* the same beautiful bokeh afforded by my 85mm f/1.4. Appreciate any input you can provide, thanks.
Burghclerebilly
February 3, 2018 2:27 pm
Thanks for the review Nasim.
What comes to my mind is the dichotomy between your initial comment that this could be a good wide-angle portrait lens, the findings that back that up and show the centre is razor sharp, and the use shown in your pictures of mainly landscapes where surely sharpness across the frame (and smooth gradation therein) is the main requirement. I also noticed that all the comparison lenses perform about the same in the middle and edge sharpness figures; the 28/1.4E distinguishing itself uniquely in the centre.
Therefore, what would really help me would be a definition of where precisely in the frame the centre, mid and edge regions that are tested are? Is there a frame diagram like the vignetting pictures you can provide to show which regions are considered centre/mid and edge please. And can we assume the sharpness changes in a linear pattern between these regions? It seems to me that most lenses are a compromise, and moreover that was shown in the history of all prime lenses, so if the 28/1.4 centre sharpness is in fact limited just to a very small central zone, we must conclude that it’s a portrait biased lens, basically not designed for landscapes.
A quick summary of what you are looking at: 1) Center sharpness is measured in two regions in the center – vertical and horizontal, then the numbers are averaged 2) Mid-frame sharpness is measured in four areas, roughly in the mid-frame. If you take a look at this test chart, the top left area that is measured is located two squares to the left of the center and one up. The measured lines for sharpness are the right and bottom lines and these vary depending on the location of the square. For example, the top right mid-frame is going to be measured on the left and bottom lines. 3) Corner sharpness is measured by looking at the vertical and horizontal lines of the partially covered squares in each extreme side of the frame.
As for the 28mm f/1.4E, it is going to pretty sharp pretty much no matter where you focus in the frame, since that’s how any lens with field curvature behaves. Think of it as a wave that changes its center depending on where you focus…
Not to mention that if you are serious enough about landscapes to shoot this lens, you likely have a tripod and are shooting at f/5.6 or less where the lens is sharp even on this test. But I think Nasim is right. If you focus in the mid-frame or edge (but perhaps not the corners), it will be sharp.
Your observations reflect my experience with this lens after having used it for one year. At close range, it is plenty sharp for environmental portraits (something I never do) My landscape resolution results have been a little disappointing – while rendition, colors are nice. I have to experiment with the wider “sweet spot” apertures Nasim mentioned and concentrate on focus to maximize depth of field.
Jeff
February 2, 2018 10:05 pm
As a bit of background, I upgraded my portrait set combo last fall from D800, 50 1.4G, 85 1.4G, 135 DC 2.0 to D850, 28 1.4E, 58 1.4G, 105 1.4E, 400 2.8E (when Nikon upgrades the 200 2.0G to an E I will complete that).
I feel that this upgrade has been like upgrading from DX to FX.
Nasim, I notice in your review that you comment on what mid-range performance would likely be without field curvature – eg. Focussing in the mid-frame instead of the centre, therefore measuring mid-frame performance when focussed there instead of focussing on the centre frame. This is a very typical portrait scenario. However, your comment is easy to miss and/or not register as significant to most readers.
I have found that I have been composing some shots in a 4:5 aspect ratio with the person on the edge. According to your Imatest result, that sharpness result should be more similar to the edge than the centre result. In practice, I have found the opposite.
Have you contemplated or explored any of this in your testing? Perhaps I can suggest performing that test and publishing the results. Such a test would be unique on the internet and be very informative.
Jeff, if you are suggesting that I test lenses by focusing them in the corners, then that’s not something I am planning to do for a number of reasons. First of all, with any lens that has field curvature, focusing in the corners is always going to bring the center out of focus – that’s what field curvature does. So you will obviously yield much sharper results to wherever you put focus on (which in this case is the corners). But then what is the value of such a test? It will simply show very good corner sharpness in most lenses out there. Sure, for those one off situations where you can see how much resolution the corners can provide, but most of us don’t focus in the extreme corners, even when shooting landscapes. As for portraits, field curvature does not matter, since you only need your subject to look sharp, not their surrounding.
Second, trying to test corners would be a nightmare, since every corner is going to look different. So which corner numbers are we going to look at then? It also means that the number of test charts that will go in each review will at least double. And then if I do corners, why not focus in the mid-frame separately as well? You see what I mean? The test charts I use have many areas where I can measure sharpness, but it is simply not practical to try to provide all the figures. It will be very difficult for anyone to understand all that data.
Testing lenses is a very difficult task. One of these days, I will document what it takes to measure a single focal length (which is why I hate testing zoom lenses!) and how many samples I have to go through to make sure that I am not dealing with a bad sample. I cannot imagine making it anymore complex…
Just a quick comment here should a mirrorless user read this review. I currently own a Z8 and Z9 after a few years with two Z6’s. I had borrowed this lens from NPS back in summer of 2018. I lusted for this lens. But between the new mirrorless news that summer and cost I held off. Over the next few years I migrated completely to mirrorless lenses, sold off adapters and so on. Earlier this year I got the itch for a fast wide angle prime. I’m not a 35 guy and the Z28 2.8 2.8 just didn’t cut it for me for pro work (24-70 2.8 is so much better). So I traded the 28 2.8 for a FTZII adapter and bought a refurb 28 1.4E. I couldn’t be happier. On mirrorless it’s silent and quick. It’s AF is a bit chattery in video, so ill stick to thr 24-70 2.8 for video. I shoot editorial and also weddings and now I do bridal prep with the 28 on the Z8 and 50 1.2 on the Z9. It’s my favourite combo in a long time. Resolution is amazing; it holds its own, and then some, with the Z mirrorless lenses. Rendering is fantastic. If you’re on the fence or waiting for the 35 1.2, you won’t be disappointed. And we can also be sure it and an adapter will be a lot less than the 35 1.2 will be.
Hi, Nasim. Is that Turkey in your photographs? I’d love to go there… maybe this year!
My apologies for such a late response – I only saw it after I started to update the lens review. Most photos are from Turkey and Jordan. There are also some photos from Wyoming’s “Hell’s Half Acre”.
Is the Nikon 28mm f1.4e lens a good lens for landscape photography? It looks like for apertures of 5.6 to 8.0 where I would be using the lens at should be really good.
Yes, it is good for anything really. One of the sharpest lenses we’ve ever tested.
I’m seriously thinking of purchasing this lens before I go to Lord Howe Island as it it’s resolution and other characteristics make it a prime choice “ if you will forgive the pun “!
I figure it would be useful in Mountain photography as well as street photography and would be a great lens to take “ as I work through my travel “ bucket list “..!
Just picked up the 28 1.4E and its everything you have said in this review. I currently own the Sigma Art 24-35 which is also a fine lens and a great buy, but the 28 1.4 is much better. The cropability factor of this lens with its much higher resolution is huge. I can even shoot this in DX mode on a 36MP sensor which extends this up to 42mm or 1.2X on a D810 for 34mm. The autofocus accuracy is better than the Sigma even with a USB dock. Thanks for providing some of the highest quality review information on the web for these lenses.
Another well-written and informative review… thanks, Nasim! I realize that I’m late to this conversation, but I’m hopeful that you are still following it. Specifically, I own a very good copy of the 28/1.4D and I’m interested to learn if there might be a compelling reason to upgrade to the new version. For landscape, I’m primarily shooting a Zeiss 2/25 (on my D850). My 28/1.4D is mainly for street, usually on my Df, but lately more often on my D850. Thank you for any comments you might have on this topic.
Michael, I apologize for a late response. The 28mm f/1.4E is a significantly sharper lens compared to the older f/1.4D – it is a night and day difference in terms of resolution potential and edge performance.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for providing an in-depth review of this lens. You had me sold on it except for your comments re bokeh, specifically that it produces “onion-shaped” bokeh due to the aspherical elements and not “rounded” as afforded by the 85mm f/1.4 that excludes aspherical completely. You concluded “if you are looking for a lens that shows beautiful background highlights, then look elsewhere.” Can you please explain what you mean by background highlights? Are you referring to comparisons of 85mm 1.4 bokeh? Are there any side-by-side sample images?
While I’m aware that no wide or near-wide angle prime will produce the same bokeh as the 85mm 1.4, I’m trying to match it is closely as possible for large group portraiture. Would you still recommend this lens over the 35mm 1.4?
Appreciate your input, thanks.
Nasim, Your review is spot on. I purchased a used copy from B&H back in January and have used it for 2 weddings. Only thing wrong was that it needed +12 focus on all of my camera bodies. Something that I have noticed is that some images had an amazing pop to them that others didn’t. I stared at them in awe… wide angle Images unlike any I’ve seen from any of my other lenses before. After reading your review and looking back at the data, I found that they were shot at f/2.8….the sweet spot that you have confirmed! I’ve found that this lens works really well for the first/last dance as it captures the surroundings quite well without being too wide. It also works well for preparation photos if you are working in a nice dressing area. I have used the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 since it was introduced. After comparing the same images from both lenses, the 28mm f/1.4 is much sharper at both close and long distances. I like the 28 1.4 so much that my 24mm f/1.4 and my Sigma 35 1.4 pretty much stay in the bag now unless I specifically need those focal lengths. The 28mm f/1.4 and 105 mm f/1.4 are both amazing new lenses by Nikon.
Thanks for posting the review and helping me realize the f/2.8 “sweet spot”.
Hi Rendell,
I’m considering the 28mm f/1.4 E as I am a wedding photographer also. I am interested specifically in bokeh – do you have any input you could share with your experience using the lens? I know Nasim, as others, have praised this lens, however the comment re the bokeh looking “onion-like” due to the aspherical elements has me thinking twice. It seems it will not produce as flattering bokeh as the 35mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4, do you agree? Please keep in mind I am primarily interested in using this lens for large group portraiture, e.g. posed wedding party and family photos, and I am trying to achieve *as close as possible* the same beautiful bokeh afforded by my 85mm f/1.4. Appreciate any input you can provide, thanks.
Thanks for the review Nasim.
What comes to my mind is the dichotomy between your initial comment that this could be a good wide-angle portrait lens, the findings that back that up and show the centre is razor sharp, and the use shown in your pictures of mainly landscapes where surely sharpness across the frame (and smooth gradation therein) is the main requirement. I also noticed that all the comparison lenses perform about the same in the middle and edge sharpness figures; the 28/1.4E distinguishing itself uniquely in the centre.
Therefore, what would really help me would be a definition of where precisely in the frame the centre, mid and edge regions that are tested are? Is there a frame diagram like the vignetting pictures you can provide to show which regions are considered centre/mid and edge please. And can we assume the sharpness changes in a linear pattern between these regions? It seems to me that most lenses are a compromise, and moreover that was shown in the history of all prime lenses, so if the 28/1.4 centre sharpness is in fact limited just to a very small central zone, we must conclude that it’s a portrait biased lens, basically not designed for landscapes.
Thanks again for your assistance!
A quick summary of what you are looking at:
1) Center sharpness is measured in two regions in the center – vertical and horizontal, then the numbers are averaged
2) Mid-frame sharpness is measured in four areas, roughly in the mid-frame. If you take a look at this test chart, the top left area that is measured is located two squares to the left of the center and one up. The measured lines for sharpness are the right and bottom lines and these vary depending on the location of the square. For example, the top right mid-frame is going to be measured on the left and bottom lines.
3) Corner sharpness is measured by looking at the vertical and horizontal lines of the partially covered squares in each extreme side of the frame.
As for the 28mm f/1.4E, it is going to pretty sharp pretty much no matter where you focus in the frame, since that’s how any lens with field curvature behaves. Think of it as a wave that changes its center depending on where you focus…
Not to mention that if you are serious enough about landscapes to shoot this lens, you likely have a tripod and are shooting at f/5.6 or less where the lens is sharp even on this test. But I think Nasim is right. If you focus in the mid-frame or edge (but perhaps not the corners), it will be sharp.
Your observations reflect my experience with this lens after having used it for one year. At close range, it is plenty sharp for environmental portraits (something I never do) My landscape resolution results have been a little disappointing – while rendition, colors are nice. I have to experiment with the wider “sweet spot” apertures Nasim mentioned and concentrate on focus to maximize depth of field.
As a bit of background, I upgraded my portrait set combo last fall from D800, 50 1.4G, 85 1.4G, 135 DC 2.0 to D850, 28 1.4E, 58 1.4G, 105 1.4E, 400 2.8E (when Nikon upgrades the 200 2.0G to an E I will complete that).
I feel that this upgrade has been like upgrading from DX to FX.
Nasim, I notice in your review that you comment on what mid-range performance would likely be without field curvature – eg. Focussing in the mid-frame instead of the centre, therefore measuring mid-frame performance when focussed there instead of focussing on the centre frame. This is a very typical portrait scenario. However, your comment is easy to miss and/or not register as significant to most readers.
I have found that I have been composing some shots in a 4:5 aspect ratio with the person on the edge. According to your Imatest result, that sharpness result should be more similar to the edge than the centre result. In practice, I have found the opposite.
Have you contemplated or explored any of this in your testing? Perhaps I can suggest performing that test and publishing the results. Such a test would be unique on the internet and be very informative.
It would take your review from great to better.
Best,
Jeff
Aka: WestEndFoto
Jeff, if you are suggesting that I test lenses by focusing them in the corners, then that’s not something I am planning to do for a number of reasons. First of all, with any lens that has field curvature, focusing in the corners is always going to bring the center out of focus – that’s what field curvature does. So you will obviously yield much sharper results to wherever you put focus on (which in this case is the corners). But then what is the value of such a test? It will simply show very good corner sharpness in most lenses out there. Sure, for those one off situations where you can see how much resolution the corners can provide, but most of us don’t focus in the extreme corners, even when shooting landscapes. As for portraits, field curvature does not matter, since you only need your subject to look sharp, not their surrounding.
Second, trying to test corners would be a nightmare, since every corner is going to look different. So which corner numbers are we going to look at then? It also means that the number of test charts that will go in each review will at least double. And then if I do corners, why not focus in the mid-frame separately as well? You see what I mean? The test charts I use have many areas where I can measure sharpness, but it is simply not practical to try to provide all the figures. It will be very difficult for anyone to understand all that data.
Testing lenses is a very difficult task. One of these days, I will document what it takes to measure a single focal length (which is why I hate testing zoom lenses!) and how many samples I have to go through to make sure that I am not dealing with a bad sample. I cannot imagine making it anymore complex…
Hope this makes sense.