AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D vs. Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF
vs. Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28—a complete comparison

In early 2010 I happened to have at my disposal three 28mm lenses for Nikkor F mount—AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D, Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF and Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28 (converted). The price difference between the lenses is massive (the Nikkor costs USD260, the Zeiss is priced at USD1030 and the Leica goes for around two grand—if you can find it, that is), and I was very interested to see what it translates into in relation to their optical performance. Also, it would be fascinating to find out what the design priorities of the three venerable lens makers were when they conceived the lenses. To satisfy my curiosity, I conducted my usual lens tests to juxtapose optical performance of the three contenders.

The lenses were tested on a 12MP Nikon D700 camera. FX (full–frame 35mm) format cameras of higher resolution will put a further emphasis on some of the performance deficiencies reported in the review. At the same time, light fall–off, distortion and corner sharpness will be less problematic when the lenses are used on DX format cameras.

Build quality, ergonomics, handling and focus

Both the Zeiss and the Leica are built like tanks—they are made of metal and do not seem to have a single piece of plastic (apart from the inbuilt lens hood in case of the Leica). In comparison, the Nikkor feels "plasticy", although for a lens that has a plastic barrel it is still quite solidly built. On the flip side, the Nikkor is significantly lighter than the other two lenses.

Left to right: AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D, Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF and Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28

The three lenses are different in size, too. The Zeiss and the Leica are quite a bit larger than the Nikkor, although in a different manner—the Zeiss is about the same in diameter as the Nikkor but considerably longer than both the Nikkor and the Zeiss; the Leica, on the other hand, is only a little bit longer than the Nikkor but wider than the other two lenses. When mounted on the camera, both the Nikkor and the Leica balance equally well and the extra bulk of the Leica is not very noticeable; the Zeiss, on the other hand, makes the camera–and–lens combination quite a bit more bulky because of the extra length.

Focus ring operation feels very differently on the lenses—the Nikkor's is loose and somewhat wobbly (although one can argue that most of the time there is no need to manually focus the lens), the Zeiss's is perfectly smooth and silky, and the Leica's is too stiff for my liking (although this might be because the lens is new). As to the operation of the aperture ring, it is rough and unrefined on the Nikkor (although, again, aperture is normally set from the camera) and very smooth and substantial on the Zeiss and the Leica.

Being an AF–D lens, the Nikkor is fully compatible with all modes and functions of the camera. The Zeiss was designed for Nikon F mount and thus has at least some communication with the camera—there is a mechanical aperture coupling, so that after setting lens data in camera (focal length and maximum aperture) there is an aperture readout in the viewfinder and on the camera's LCD screen. The lens is stopped down to the current aperture setting only when making an exposure, thus viewfinder view is always bright; also, aperture value is written into the EXIF data of the image file. Generally, I can shoot fairly quickly with the Zeiss even though aperture and focus have to be set manually on the lens.

The Leica, on the other hand, has no communication with the camera whatsoever. First, there is no aperture readout in the viewfinder, so one has to look at the aperture ring when setting aperture or to know what its current value is. Second, the lens is always stopped down to the current aperture value and viewfinder view is very dim at smaller apertures, which often causes problems with focusing and framing (first focusing at f/2.8 and then stopping the lens down works for static subjects only). Third, aperture value is not written into the EXIF data. All in all, I found the Leica very slow to use—if I can afford shooting at this speed I would rather use my medium format setup to obtain better image quality.

Sharpness

It is understandable why most photographers usually put more emphasis on sharpness than on other optical performance factors—while such aberrations as distortion, light fall–off, etc. will be seen only in some images and, at least partially, can be dealt with in post processing, soft corners will be visible in most, if not all, photographs and cannot be remedied after the fact. Thus, let us first see how the lenses perform in the department of sharpness.

The images below are crops from the original test shots shown at 100% magnification; no sharpening was applied to any of them. I am posting them for your reference only—they are too small to tell the whole story, so you will have to take my word on the lenses' relative performance.

AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D

Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF

Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28

f/2.8, centre

f/2.8, corner

In the centre at f/2.8, the Zeiss and the Leica are about equally sharp with the Zeiss probably having a slight edge over the Leica; both lenses, however, are noticeably sharper than the Nikkor.

In the farthest corners, the Zeiss is very soft at f/2 but still a tiny bit sharper than the Nikkor at f/2.8. Quite strangely, being a faster lens does not give the Zeiss a big advantage in the area of sharpness—even though it is already stopped down by one stop at f/2.8, it is still only marginally sharper than the Nikkor. Absolutely amazingly, the Leica is already very sharp here and by far sharper than the Nikkor and the Zeiss!

Sharpness, naturally, improves as you stop the lenses down until diffraction takes its tall at about f/16; at the same time, the relative performance of the lenses remains the same—in the centre, the Zeiss and the Leica are about equally sharp with the Nikkor slightly lagging behind; in the corners, the Nikkor is noticeably softer than the Zeiss, which, in turn, is visibly softer than the Leica. It would probably be more adequate to say that the Leica is nearly perfectly sharp in the corners and the other two lenses are trying to catch up with it as you stop them down. They, however, fail to do so (quite miserably at that in case of the Nikkor) and below is what we get at f/11.

AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D

Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF

Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28

f/11, centre

f/11, corner

In the centre, the Zeiss and the Leica still appear a tiny bit sharper than the Nikkor, although the difference is inconsequential for most intent and purposes. In the corners, the same relationship as at larger apertures remains—the Nikkor is softer than the Zeiss, which is softer than the Leica; this being said, the differences are not as pronounced as, say, at f/2.8.

All things considered, the Leica is clearly a sharper lens and wins hands down in this department. The Zeiss is a better performer than the Nikkor but not massively so.

Vignetting

All test shots below were taken at the same EV (exposure value) in manual mode. As you can see, the Zeiss shows atrocious vignetting at f/2 but has the advantage of being a faster lens, so that the aberration is not as bad at f/2.8 as in case of the other two lenses. The Leica apparently has the smallest image circle and thus is the worst performer in terms of this aberration.

AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D

Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF

Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28

f/2

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

Distortion

All three lenses produce noticeable barrel distortion of a complex signature in the shape of a stretched out "w", which cannot be completely removed in post–processing in a straightforward manner. Its degree is such that it probably will not be noticeable in most images but I would not use any of the lenses for serious architectural applications. If you ask me to pick the winner, though, then the Zeiss has a slight edge over the other two lenses, and the Leica gets the silver medal.

Chromatic aberration

As can be clearly seen in the test shots below, while the Leica shows very, very modest amount of chromatic aberration in the corners at f/2.8, the Nikkor and the Zeiss have loads of it. As one stops the lenses down the amount of the aberration reduces, but the Nikkor and the Zeiss fail to catch up again—as with sharpness, the Leica is head and shoulders ahead of them. The images below also illustrate again how much sharper the Leica is in the corners at this aperture.

AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D

Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF

Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28

f/2.8, corner

Flare

All the contenders are very resistant to flare. It is possible to induce slight ghosting when you have bright sources of light in an image but, quite interestingly, in case of each lens ghosts appear under different circumstances and are of different form and size, which is probably due to the differences in the shape of the lens elements. I, however, cannot say that any of the lenses is obviously better or worse in this regard—they all perform very well.

Bokeh

Bokeh is very seldom an issue with lenses of this focal length; nonetheless, I tested the lenses out of curiosity and am happy to report that they produce fairly nice looking out of focus areas.

Final thoughts

I almost have the impression that Nikon, Zeiss and Leica agreed to produce three 28mm lenses that belong to three different categories and, as such, do not directly compete with each other. The Nikkor is small, light, cheap and can be auto–focused; it, however, is clearly inferior to the other two lenses in terms of optical performance. The Leica is bigger, heavier, costs an arm and a leg but is impeccable with respect to sharpness. As to the Zeiss, the lens, rather uncomfortably, sits in the middle—its optical performance places it somewhat closer to the Nikkor yet its price and positioning marketing–wise suggest that it should not be that far from the Leica.

In the end of the day, every photographer has a given budget and the choice will be easy for most people. As to where I would put my money, quite interestingly, I find myself being the odd man out. On the one hand, I want the performance of the Leica but, given how I use my 35mm DSLR, its usability is not going to work for me—as mentioned above, if I have the luxury of shooting slowly I would rather use my medium format system. The Zeiss, on the other hand, appears kind of lukewarm—compared with the Nikkor, it adds a little (optical performance and build quality) and takes a little (convenience and speed of use); what it adds could be attractive if it did not make your wallet quite a bit lighter. So this leaves me with the Nikkor for the time being, hoping that one day Nikon will produce a better 28mm lens (faster than f/2.8, please) that will sell at a reasonable price.