What do you want to use this lens for?
A 42-44mm equivalent lens is not what many would consider a "normal" lens on
a 35mm film camera. That would be more of a "semi-wide" lens. Lenses of this
focal length were used on film P&S cameras but never really caught on for
35m slr cameras.
If you want a flat, sharp, wide lens at a bargain price get the Nikon 50
f1.8 before it is no longer available. The 50mm focal length is long enough
to be able to use selective focus at wider apertures, something the 28mm
lens will not allow to any great degree. You may have to take a step or two
back from your subject but it will be worth it.

I am using a 28mm f/2.8 lens on my Canon DSLR, I really like this
lens.  On the Canon with its 1.6 crop factor it comes out to the same
as a 45mm lens on a FF camera, pretty close to what you would be
looking at on the Nikon.  If I am shooting inside with available light
this is my lens of choice.

Scott

I do exactly this on a Canon 20D, where 28mm is more similar to 45mm
and 35mm is more similar to 56mm. The difference seems slight, but I'd
use a 35mm as a normal if I were using Nikon. The 42mm angle of view
of the 28 is much further from 50mm than the 52.5mm angle of view of
the 35. More than that, though, is the 2.0 maximum aperture of the
35mm. That extra stop will come in handy very often.

Unless, of course, you already have a fast 50mm prime... I could see
the want for more of a difference from that lens than a 35mm would
offer. Really, neither choice is a bad one, so do what feels right.

Will

Have you considered the 35mm f/2 as a "normal" lens.  It's got an extra stop
and comes at a bargain price.  The 28/2.8 would still be a nice lens to
have, being much lighter and compact than the 17-35/2.8 & 17-55/2.8DX zooms
which would be the logical alternative should you want a zoom rather than a
prime.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

I've been using my 24mm and 28 mm f2.8 AIs lenses quite a bit on my D200.
The 28mm in particular will close focus down to 9 inches, and with the crop
factor, makes a nice little closeup lens.

--
www.mattclara.com

I use a FA 28/2.8 on my Pentax APS-C DSLRs as the single standard
prime and the equivalent 35mm focal is 43mm which is the perfect
standard lens for the field of view, i.e. the diagonal length of the
135 film.

RiceHigh
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com

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.

Thanks everyone for your input. I generally like a wider "normal" lens
so that's why I didn't spend too much time thinking about the 35mm. I
always felt that 50mm was too narrow to be normal, but not narrow
enough to be useful...

True about the extra half stop to f2.. that would be nice. But mainly,
I'm looking for a lens that is as compact as possible, sharp, and just
slightly wide. Seems like the 28 will do the trick.

-Karl

I loved my 24 2.8 on my D200
Lightweight , fast, easy to use. Classic photojournalist field of
view.
I sold it to buy a 12 - 24 f4 which I love, but wish I had have kept
the 24 prime as well.
the 12 -24 is bulky, conspicuous, heavy and not fast enough for low
light.
The 24 was just so easy to get around with and sharp as anything.
I agree with bmoag (below?) that the other prime you must get is the
50mm 1.8.
Such a beautiful result for portraits and low light, lncredibly light
and so cheap it's almost disposable.

for the first 2 years on a D70 I used nothing but a 35mm f2 prime and
it took great pictures. I still have that and use it for still lifes
and when I just want to go out with a small light lens on the D200. I
don't think anything focusses closer?
Hey. there's no harm in having all of them (provided you're not
married)
matt