Nikon 24mm 1.4 over Nikon 16-35mm VR

Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
544
Location
US
I have funds to grab a Nikon 24mm 1.4 and I am on the fence ready to jump and just need a final push.

Should I get it and sell my Nikon 16-35mm VR?

How is 24mm 1.4 for landscape shots? I want to use it for landscape shots in addition to people/street shots.

Are there still quality issues with this lens. Some users have complained about it.

Thank you
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
301
Location
Calgary AB
I own both and when I'm shooting Landscapes I take the 16-35mm, when I'm shooting people I take the 24mm 1.4. Two very different lenses.

I don't think I'd be happy shooting landcapes with the 24mm as my only wide lens.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
3,969
Location
Chicago
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/549-nikkorafs2414ff?start=1

The tests tell me distortion is greater with the prime than the zoom at 24mm, interpolating between 21/28.

Corners are poor on the 1.4 at the first two stops, but who uses this for landscapes at 1.4 and 2.0? My landscapes always seem to have a lot of trees with fine branches in the very corners. Therefore I tend to use 8/11 to get them sharp.

You can check out the CA.

That leaves the color brilliance/saturation and I have yet to see that quantified on any lens tests. My experience tells me the new G lenses are very good, better than older ones and primes generally are better than zooms.

For landscapes, I would use the 16/35. Then add my 50 1.4 G & 105 2.8 VR. Same for DX, the 12/24 is as good as the wide primes so that is my choice there.

Wides really seem to not work well on digital. Even the 14/24 2.8 is not really good in the corners, 14mm and 2.8.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
2,456
Location
Sydney, Oz
Spending $2k on a 1.4 prime to shoot landscapes stopped down is a colossol waste of money.
 
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
300
Location
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
I am with most of people here

I would stay away from 24 in your cases for sure - two reasons
One
Spending $2k on a 1.4 prime to shoot landscapes stopped down is a colossol waste of money.

Two
just for convinced part of it as well. You are stopping everything down anyway so why spend some much on so little use lens. Maybe look into getting some filters or some other equipments that could help in your shoots
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
544
Location
US
Spending $2k on a 1.4 prime to shoot landscapes stopped down is a colossol waste of money.

My primary use will be street/people wide open in low light conditions but I also want to be able to stop down and use it for landscape so that I can sell the 16-35mm and use the $1000 elsewhere.

I would rather not keep both lenses.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
I use the 24mm f/1.4 for exactly both things - in fact 3 things = street people, low light for both people and night city scapes , and for .... landscapes - stopped down, and now I can use my filters (77mm),and also my Lee-filters - could not with the 14-24 (yes Lee has made a new filter holder now for the 14-24, but you have to buy new Lee-filters).

So for me, it is THE lens if I want to shoot wide - and it is SO fine for scapes, so I am planning to sell my 14-24.


You can use the lens for special scapes with the thin DOF = e.g. shooting f. 1.4 or 2.0 with an interesting thing in the foreground, and then the background fading away as with a portrait.

f. 1.4:

5711414567_bd7ba5c5e1_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)





5711998362_a9e36a58e1_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



and "normal" landscape, f. 8:


5711407357_c49f6f8c0a_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



and a night shot (f. 2.0 - iso 1600)

5712000888_e5cdeac7a8_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



----

Number 1 and 3 are with Nikon D7000, number 2 and 4 are Nikon D700.

------

Yes (from your asking) there has been complaints about the focus at f. 1.4 from some, but it is always a challenge to nail focus at f. 1.4, and if there are problems go to the Nikon repair shop, you have the warranty.

I can really recommend this lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
300
Location
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
for street photography and night time shoot this lens is a MUST. I have 35 and was hoping to try 24 some time for wider angle but so love VA of 35 so cant let it go ..... yet
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
863
Location
Bronx,NY
I have funds to grab a Nikon 24mm 1.4 and I am on the fence ready to jump and just need a final push.

Should I get it and sell my Nikon 16-35mm VR?

How is 24mm 1.4 for landscape shots? I want to use it for landscape shots in addition to people/street shots.

Are there still quality issues with this lens. Some users have complained about it.

Thank you

It's pretty simple. When shooting with the 16-35, what focal length do you find yourself using? Check your landscape exif info.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
544
Location
US
I use the 24mm f/1.4 for exactly both things - in fact 3 things = street people, low light for both people and night city scapes , and for .... landscapes - stopped down....

Steinar, thanks for info and images. Looks great!

I compared the 24/1.4 to the 14-24 and even at f/8 the prime looked better. I wouldn't buy one to shoot it only that way but if you get one anyway it makes for a superb landscape lens.

Great news!

It's pretty simple. When shooting with the 16-35, what focal length do you find yourself using? Check your landscape exif info.

Anywhere from 20-25 really. The exact focal length depends on composition. I try to avoid going below 20mm because of the distortion on this lens. I was wondering if 16-35mm produces better landscape shots when stepped down.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
Thanks, and if you some day buy a dx-camera you can use it for portraits (36mm), one of the famous danish portrait photographer always shoot with a 35mm lens on his full frame - sometimes letting the background fade away with a big aperture, and sometimes he shows the background with a small aperture.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
745
Location
Washington
I have funds to grab a Nikon 24mm 1.4 and I am on the fence ready to jump and just need a final push.

Should I get it and sell my Nikon 16-35mm VR?

How is 24mm 1.4 for landscape shots? I want to use it for landscape shots in addition to people/street shots.

Are there still quality issues with this lens. Some users have complained about it.

Thank you

I sold my 16-35vr and 24-70 to fund a 24 1.4, and I absolutely love it. I ended up buying another 16-35 because 24 wasn't wide enough. If you have the funds for the 24 w/o having to sell the 16-35, keep both for a while and then make your decision.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
304
Location
So. California
You can use the lens for special scapes with the thin DOF = e.g. shooting f. 1.4 or 2.0 with an interesting thing in the foreground, and then the background fading away as with a portrait.

Very nice examples. I'm considering selling my 20 f/2.8 and getting this lens.
 
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
3
Location
Denmark
I have had the same thoughts as you, my heart tells me that I should go for the 24G, as it is smaller than the 16-35, it's 1.4 and the bokeh is quite pleasing. I currently have the 35G and 85G, so it would complete the trilogy. But, I will be using the wideangle for rig-shots on cars and automotive photography in general, and most of the shots will be + f/8, so my logic tells me to get the 16-35. It's a hard one. I may get both.


Kind regards,

Ebbe
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
Thank you very much Roger and Falter.

I think it is easy to get the thin dof with this lens.


4927431240_a883d12b6a_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




4822802608_d3ebe2e2d5_b.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
47
Location
Switzerland
I'm using both lenses since they were released and I'm a passionate landscape photographer. Both lenses have their justification. You won't be completely happy with only one of them. I suggest you to keep the 16-35. The 24mm will be a good addition.
I love to have a blurred foreground in landscape shots with f/1.4. It creates a kind of 3D-look. So even on daylight you can use the fast aperture. You might need a nd filter from time to time. For nighttime shots the 24mm kills all the rest. There's simply nothing better than this. But the 16-35mm is much more versatile and especially on hikes I'm using the 16-35mm most of the time.
Nevertheless: If I had to choose one lens over the other, I would always take the 24mm. It was my only lens on the D700 for a few months and it worked quite well :biggrin:.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom