Consider also Pentax. The aperture and focusing rings turn the same direction as Nikon. I use both makes and consider that valuable.
The 28/3.5 SMC-Pentax is a real gem (SMC Pentax were sometimes called K-series, though that is not official).
The later 28/3.5 SMC Pentax-M is well regarded, enough that the 3.5 M-series costs more than the 2.8 M-series.
The SMC Pentax 24mm's, both 2.8 and 3.5, are highly regarded.
The SMC Pentax A series 24/2.8-A and 28/2.8-A are fine lenses, though more expensive due to being able to be used for shutter-priority AE and having aperture adjustable on camera.
I have a 28/2.8 M lens and find it quite good. There was a 28/3.5 SMC Pentax which was supposed to be the same optically as the earlier screw mount 28/3.5. It often sells for more than the later 28/2.8 M. If I am not mistaken the 28/3.5 M was sold only in non-U.S. markets. Minolta sold a 28/3.5 MD lens in non-U.S. markets. In the U.S. you could get a 28/2 or a 28/2.8. The differece in price between the f/2.8 and the f/3.5 was not significant enough in the U.S. for both models to be offered.
28mm f/3.5 is one little lens that does wonders and so is 85mm f/2.0
That could be. I did have one and am sorry I sold it. I'm going to pick up another or an SMC Pentax version one of these days to replace it. I have the 28/2.8-M now, and it renders nicely, but it just isn't as sharp as the 28/3.5-M to my eye, and that seems to be a pretty typical impression of it, from what I gather. I still have my old EBC Fujinon 28/3.5 I bought new 35 years ago, and that's nice and sharp, a very nice lens, but I lose auto diaphragm with it adapted.
Originally Posted by dynachrome