1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Nikon 24mm 2.8

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by tomtodeath, Apr 27, 2007.

  1. tomtodeath

    tomtodeath

    463
    Jan 11, 2007
    new jersey
    My local store has one for sale for $199 without a box (they lost it). Should I ignore the not so hot reviews this lens has (with a d200) and grab it?
     
  2. Do you have a specific need for it? Can you immediately pinpoint situations where you would use it or situations in the past where you said, "gee, I wish I had a wider lens!" That's a good deal for this lens, so I'd probably spring for it....
     
  3. tomtodeath

    tomtodeath

    463
    Jan 11, 2007
    new jersey
    All the time! I mostly use a fifty because the kit lens is too slow! but too often i find myself with my back against the wall and not being able to frame a subject. the 35/2 would probably be nice, but still not be wide enough sometimes. Im gonna pick it up on monday!
     
  4. What bad reviews did you see about this lens? Galen Rowell loved this lens and it's one of this fav'd lenses.

    Even though I hardly use it these days (because of high quality zooms), I had no issues with it when I was using it on my F5 some years ago.
     
  5. All RIIIIGHT!!! :smile: Sounds like you've got yourself a winner here!
     
  6. gt6jim

    gt6jim

    85
    Feb 15, 2007
    Worcester, UK
    Hey,
    when I'm travelling light or walking around the great outdoors, I often leave the 18-135 in the bag and keep the 24mm on.
    It gives a great angle on DX cameras for landscapes and people. The nifty is just too long (sometimes) at equiv 75mm for me.

    I'd say go for it.
     
  7. Crc

    One of the key advantages of the 24mm/2.8AFD is the CRC (floating element) technology in there compared to the 35mm/2AFD and 50mm/1.4AFD. This gives it an edge when you are focusing near.

    That's one variable which eluded me for years. A lens resolution is actually different when focusing at infinity and closer by. I discovered this thru experience and it was later confirmed by a published Canon documentation.

    5905619-lg.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  8. tomtodeath

    tomtodeath

    463
    Jan 11, 2007
    new jersey
    I was referring to phtotzone's review and another that I can't seem to remember where I saw it that said basicly the same:

    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_24_28/index.htm
    "Verdict
    The Nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8D didn't really convince during the tests due to various shortcomings. The resolution figures were generally very decent but otherwise the lens left something to be desired for a fix-focal with relatively high barrel distortions, very high vignetting at f/2.8 and very pronounced CAs. Spherical aberrations (focus shifts when stopping down) on top don't make things any better. So despite the relatively ambitious design (floating elements) the lens doesn't seem to be overly attractive anymore. This doesn't mean that the AF 24mm f/2.8D is a bad lens, it's not, but fix-focals should perform better than good zoom lenses."

    although the sample photos on that site look great to me, as well as yours, Arthury, and thanks for the info about CRC. I can see this becoming my most used lens giving my 50 the back seat, until i can one day afford a 17-55. And then that will be my main lens, until I get tired of how big it is.. thanks everyone!
     
  9. tomtodeath

    tomtodeath

    463
    Jan 11, 2007
    new jersey
    481814829_679e78323b_o.png
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    I love it! no noticable CA's! sharp wide open, minimal distortion, great field of view, fast focusing, this will be a great every day lens for me!
     
  10. rvink

    rvink

    Mar 21, 2006
    New Zealand
    Bjorn's review for the AiS version (same optics as the AF) also mentions CA:
    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html
    This lens is a great performer on film, but does not seem as well optimized for digital.

    It might be worth taking some test shots before buying, maybe they tested bad samples. Some zooms in the same range, such as the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and Tamron 17-50/2.8 get good reviews, it might be worth checking them out too.
     
  11. tomtodeath

    tomtodeath

    463
    Jan 11, 2007
    new jersey
    Already got it! thanks though, I did bring my D200 and Powerbook and took some test shots with it in the store and outside the store, I did not see any CA and was definately happy with the results. I did look at a Sigma 18-50, and it was not a good copy, so I just gave up and went with the Nikon non-zoom till I can afford a beast/17-55. I prefer smaller lenses and using "foot zoom" anyway///...
     
  12. I bought the 20mm F2.8 AFD instead. On digital it is 30mm.
     
  13. Here's another ...
    481416455_a12c458793_o.png
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  14. Nchesher

    Nchesher

    579
    Jul 7, 2006
    Lansing,MI
    I like mine although it doesn't get a ton of use. I really wish it was faster though. It's main use for me is minimum focusing distance of like a foot. I'll probably sell mine when I get the 17-55 2.8.
     
  15. :eek: 
     
  16. Consider the Nikkor 20/2.8 too. The 24/2.8 does seem to get mixed reviews and take some knocks. I just acquired a 20/2.8 from GoGo and I really like its sharpness, color fidelity, and rectilinearity. I'm hoping to use it for panoramas mostly.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.