Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm 1:2.8 or AF Nikkor 28mm 1:2.8D?

To D or not to D? That is the question

As long as I am able to move freely I prefer fixed focal length. And because I wanted to fill my (lense) gaps for my Nikons (Nikon D3 and Nikon F5) I did some research between christmas and new year in order to find a decent and affordable 28mm lense which might do the job for me.

Ar some point I concentrated on the Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm 1:2.8 and its successor Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm 1:2.8D. A classic that pretty much seemed to be what I had been looking for. From what I read about it, the non-D would perform just as good as the D-version (which only had minor differences) but from what I saw on ebay, the non-D version was cheaper.

I found a nice looking lense with a good price and bought it online. I am mostly interested in reading about the experiences other people make with a camera and a lense and check the photos on Flickr and Google that have been taken with it. And I don´t stop doing it after I bought one as long as I am waiting for it.

The funny thing is - while I mostly read articles where people said there would be no big difference between the non-D and the D-version before, all the suddon I found mostly articles in which people stated there would be a big difference (quality/photo wise). Shit happens. And I found a a D-version which was only 10 EUR more expensive (and boxed) than the one I had allready bought.

So I bought the D-lense too, to be on the safe side and told myself, I can still sell the non-D version again. But before I sell one of the two, I wanted to test if there was a noticable difference or not ...

Shot #1: Goethestr. with bright and even clouds

Do you see a difference, worth 10 - 50 EUR? I don´t. May be the D has a tiny bit more contrast but that is nothing I would see unless you put those shots side by side like in this case.

Shot #2: Graffiti

Not much difference here either ...