Karl Winkler wrote:

I'm considering purchasing a prime 28mm lens as a "normal" lens for my
D200, thus yielding a similar angle of view to a 42mm lens on a 35mm
camera. The most obvious choice is the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF. Anyone
here doing this? Any comments about such a setup? Any comments on my
choice of lens?

Oh yeah, you will love it. Consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 also; though
it's not cheap at $430. I've been using a beat up old AIS 28mm f/2
manual focus and I really love it though it is hard to manually focus.

While the 28 does end up a bit wider than a normal 50 with crop factor,
the 50 is a bit long to be actually 'normal' (a quirk of marketing an
compromises I think). I also have a 45mm f/2.8 and that is way to long
for a normal lens at an equivalent of 68mm. One place I noticed the
field of view is a bit wide is with buildings, there is a substantial
amount of perspective distortion at 28mm. If you think that might bug
you, go for a 35mm f/2. But 28mm is so comfortable, so close to the
normal human field of vision, I'm sure you will love it. If I had to
throw out all my lenses & only keep one, this would be an easy choice, I
would even dump AF for that. As another poster mentioned, it does
freaking macros too.

Regarding f/stop and speed, if you are interested in shallow DOF, the
f/2.8 looks comparable to an f/4.2 lens on film. The low-light
nimbleness of f/2.8 remains unaffected though 2.8 is not 1.8. The Sigma
30mm f/1.4 has a comparable DOF to a 45mm f/2.1 on film.

If you think you might get a pricey 17-35 f/2.8 then the 28/2.8 will
actually under-perform that expensive zoom. It is smaller though. It
would be nice if Nikon released a 30mm f/1.4 DX but don't hold your
breath; get the Sigma if that's your desire.