Nikon 24/2.8 AF lens

My biggest complaint with the Nikon 24/2.8 is it's barrel distortion, which is particularly objectionable with architectural subjects. Nonetheless, I've owned and used 24's (all manual focus) since 1969.

My 24/2.8D shows almost no distortion. Of couse, if you place subject near the edge of frame, it will be distorted. However, straight line still straight; therefore no complaint.

According to Nikon's most recent product literature, the 28mm/2.8D does not have the close-range corrections feature. I'd assume that if it did, Nikon would brag about it. The manual focus 28mm/2 does have CRC.

This is really a comment about the 28mm lenses -- the original 28 f/2.8AF was essentially a 28/2.8 Series E with AF (five elements, no CRC), and should not be confused with the superb Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS (eight elements, CRC). The new Nikkor 28/2.8 AF-d has a different optical formula, with six elements. According to my Nikon catalog, the AF-d version does have CRC, although it focuses less close than the older 28/2.8 AIS. Personally, my 28/2 AIS is a very intuitive focal length for me, but I learned to love my 24/2 AI on a recent trip to Germany. There is enough of a difference between 24mm and 28mm that I own and use both.

I prefer *fast* versions of wide angles because when I use them I am either: (1) shooting indoors, with existing dark, where the one-stop difference in speed is essential, or (2) shooting near/far compositions at f/8 or smaller, where any quality difference between the f/2 and f/2.8 versions of these lenses would be beyond my ability to discern.

No Nikon 28mm F2.8 has ever had CRC, However note Pop Photo December gav the AF lens outstanding reviews

I've been extremely happy with the quality of the Nikon 24mm 2.8D AF lens. The persective is so appealing and interesting that it has become the standard that I leave on the camera. Very useful for indoor groups, full-length or environmental portraits and not surprisingly, it really excels at landscapes. The image quality is noticeably better than zooms in this range even at 5X7, with the possible exception of the Nikon 20-35 f2.8.

I've seen so many conflicting reports on whether or not the 28/2.8 AF-d has CRC (even within Nikon's own promotional literature) that I decided to call Nikon directly. The definitive answer is that the 28/2.8 AIS is the only version of this lens with CRC; the non-AI, AI, AF, and AF-d versions do *not* have CRC.

According to the NikonUSA web site official stats the 28 2.8D AF lens does have CRC. This is not an inexpensive lens, but it is $85.00 less than the 24 2.8D AF.

According to a Nikon booklet, only the AF 20mm and the AF 24mm have CRC. So the 28 doesn't. But isn't this page about the 24mm?? I own a 24mm and love its sharpness and brilliance, when blended down at least. The only thing that really bugs me, is its image quality at f/2.8, which I think is really unsatisfactory. But don't judge this lens at full open and it's definately worth its price.

I used to have an AIS 24/2.8 MF lens. It's really a nice lens, which I believe has the same optics as the AF version. A few months back I decided that I want an extra stop, and I went for 24/2 AIS. The f2 lens is simply sharp wide open (in the center, not the corners), with added brilliance in the colour rendition. Anyone comfortable with manual focusing and can afford to spent big bucks should get themselves a 24/2 instead of 24/2.8. The price is about 600USD, compared to 300USD of the 24/2.8. IMO, it's just worth the dollars.

The Nikon manual-focus 28/2.8 AI-S lens DOES INDEED feature close-range correction. I just bought one, an excellent and very solid design (pooh-pooh to all that plastic AF garbage). What's more, I have found the 28/2.8 to be a superior lens to the 28/2 in terms of contrast.

We must be discussing the 24mm lens (AIS,AF) here?!

I sold my 24mm 2.8 AF without hesistation after I saw the slides produced by my friend's 24mm F2 AIS!! If you think the 24mm 2.8 is excellent, then you ain't seen nothing yet. After using a 24mm F2 AIS for two rolls of film, I am beginning to feel that the 2.8 version should be 'obsoleted'! It is 'fuzzy', and there is no definition or rendition in colour. Red is one patch of red, blue is one patch of blue, but the 24mm F2 can tell you what is going on within! Who cares about CRC?

It may be pertinent to remember here that what's important is not whether a lens has something called "CRC," the effects of which very few of us can adequately describe in scientific terms anyway, but whether a lens ostensibly corrected for a distance conjugate of 50X offers performance that holds up in the close range. Trials will tell you whether it does so for your uses and to your standards.

Many lens manufacturers incorporate "luxury" features or employ varied means of achieving balanced performance that may or may not be touted in the marketing literature. Pentax has several 35mm lenses with aspheric elements that are not identified as such; Mamiya has several lenses that use an ultra-low-dispersion glass but that aren't labelled "apo." On the other hand, there are a number of point-and-shoots that have lenses that utilize press-formed aspheric elements, and, so far as I know, there is not a single true apochromat on the consumer market (there used to be one, but not any more). Each manufacturer sets its tolerances for what it will call "apo" in the utter absence of any exogenous standards, such that the term has simply become a marketing code-word meaning "we used low-dispersion glass" or merely "this is one of our better-quality lenses."

To give a trial to a lens's close-focus performance, set the lens to its close focus point, place a complex object in the corner as well as the center of the field of view, and take pictures. Then examine the pictures and see what you can see.

You should focus carefully in two ways: first, by aiming at the corner object so it's in the center of the field, moving the camera into focus, then recomposing; and, alternately, by keeping the corner object in the corner and focusing it as well as you can on the viewfinder screen. You should be aware that in either case, focusing errors will most likely determine your "results." But since such a trial duplicates shooting conditions, you'll probably learn something that's good to know, namely, which method of focusing on a corner object works best for that lens at its close-focus point.

Next, try the same thing at 2X the close-focusing distance (3X for a WA) and see if things improve.

The bottom line is that every lens is loaded with errors, aberrations, and optical shortcomings--every lens. The only smart thing to do is simply to conduct a series of careful trials (to make me happy when I get to heaven, the considerate angels will refrain from calling them "tests") that tell you how your lens behaves...on your camera, with your films, and under your shooting conditions. Then, it's up to you to decide what you can accept and what you can't. That way you will know when you can use your lens confidently, and which conditions you need to be careful to avoid.

The point here is simply that if your lens performs well enough for you at close focus under your conditions, then you shouldn't care a fig if it lacks some mysterious feature called CRC; and if it doesn't perform acceptably for you at close focus under your conditions, then it should be no consolation if it *is* said to have that mysterious feature.

Heaving overweight self ponderously off soapbox,

--Mike Johnston, Editor, _PHOTO Techniques_ magazine

In ref to previous comment: CRC!?!... Those darn marketing gimics again!, right?

All I have to say is that the AF-Nikkor f=24mm 1:2.8 D lens begins to lose sharpness after about f16. I guess this is because of a pinholing effect.

By the way, I also have an AF-Nikkor f=35mm 1:2 D lens which is great! It has an extra stop (that being f2) and it still goes down to f22, wow!. It is sharp from f2 through f22 and can focus to less than a foot (or .22 meter). This gives a very interesting perspective for portraits (big noses and big forheads, etc.).

Both lenses focus very fast on a Nikon F4.

24 2.8D is a very good lens with one reservation. I have been using one sample of it and is prone to flare-ghosting. You have to watch for it carefully in the finder and Nikon's recommended hood is too small to be effective. In one case, I photographed some architecture that were moderately back-side lit and early morning sun was well out of frame. When I got slides back, I saw a very interesting colorful sparkle of light near one edge, I had not seen it since the 90S does not have a 100% finder. 35 2.0D is better in these circumstances. Otherwise I am very pleased with my 24.

35 and 24 make good companions, one on the camera and other in the pocket. I find this combo much more useful than a zoom covering this range with almost non-existant distortion, high speed, better resolution-contrast and they don't cost you a fortune like the 20-35 2.8D. 24 & 35 also have the same filter size and neither have vignetting problems. I almost always use them either with a polariser (a normal thickness B+W) or a Nikon A2 warmup.

Though I do not *yet* own a prime, but my lenses are currently all zooms (35-80 & 60-300), I am more and more drawn to the world of prime lenses.

Its probally my fault since the beginning, buying the zoom that came with the camera, then figuring that zoom is the way to go. I have taken some really super pictures that I am proud of with my zoom lenses, but I can definately start seeing the appeal of sharper pictures.

Since I am currently in the market for a wide angle lens right now. My buying decisions are: Low-Mid cost ($140-$250) or a 24mm ($250) prime and a 50mm ($100) prime. So far, the prime lenses are in current favour. Not sure if I would sell the 35-80mm zoom though....

Mike LePard

michael.lepard@home.com

Novice Photographer

Professional Graphic Artist

Partly in reply to Mike Johnston's comment (and because I just bought the 24mm 2.8 AF): There was a point when I was seduced to buy Tamron zoom lens. Then I shot a series of test pictures with it and with my 50mm 1.8 prime. Due to my ability or the quality of tests, I wasn't able to see any definite results. But you know, after that I still felt a remorse, returned the Tamron zoom, and bought a prime lens (105mm at that time). Why? Because I wasn't an experienced photographer, and I never owned a 105mm before. And I didn't have enough experience to tell the difference in sharpness between Tamron zoom and Nikkor prime. But it would be a disappointment for me, if after shooting hundreds of rolls with Tamron I would eventually learn that all my pictures are inferior because of the lens I used. On the other hand, when I was taking my Nikkor prime with me, and seeing some pro nearby with very expensive 35mm equipment, I still had a feeling that I can take equally good pictures if I just make the right effort. So that was to say that it's hard to jugde the lens by testing it before you buy:) And testing may not be available, as well.

Can anyone explain why Nikon's manual focus lenses are more expensive than their autofocus counterparts? For example, the 24/2.8 MF (AIS) lens is about $60 more than the lens reviewed here (24/2.8D AF).

Can anyone explain why Nikon's manual focus lenses are more expensive than their autofocus counterparts? For example, the 24/2.8 MF (AIS) lens is about $60 more than the lens reviewed here (24/2.8D AF).

The correct answer is probably, 'because Nikon thinks they can charge that much for the manual focus lens and people will pay for it' (and the difference, today, is $80 for grey vs. grey at B&H). If you've held both in your hands, you'll be more impressed with the build quality of the manual focus lens. The AF 24 has that slightly 'cheesy' plastic feel to it.

There's a similar disparity in price ($100) and feel for the AF and MF 20mm/2.8 lenses. I've owned both the 20mm's (and the AIS 24/2.0) and the MF lenses have a vaguely 'bullet proof' feel to them while the AF's seem a tad fragile. I've done some very nasty things to my MF glass and they just bounce back for more. I have handled (and heard about) some AF 20mm lenses that are broken somewhere inside, and it doesn't leave me feeling great about the durability.

Some would say 'you don't really need AF in a wideangle lens', but I disagree. Having a CPU in the lens makes all the difference for operability with Nikon's flash system. Additionally, I often find myself shooting in situations where the light is so low that the only confidence I have for focusing is to place the red 'focus grid' projected by a flash on my subject and let the camera figure it out.

I currently own a Nikon FG and have no intentions of 'upgrading' to an autofocus system, at least in the near future. I've used a 20mm f3.5 AIS lens for the past year or so, but for various reasons have decided that I'd rather have a 24mm. I was surprised to learn that the AIS lenses are more expensive than the AF-D.

Have any of you used the 24mm AF-D lens on a manual Nikon camera (FG or otherwise)? Is the focussing/distance scale on the AF lens useable in MF situations? I've focussed my 20mm almost exclusively with the distance scale and would like to do the same with my 24mm. I guess I'm asking if the money saved on the AF-D lens is really worth it, or should I just spend the extra $$ and get the AIS lens?

The image quality used with D70 is not good. The image is too soft when compared to the same f/ with the kit lens. It just waste of money if you think this is a prime for the D-SLR.

I have used this lens for years on my film body...I have never noticed a problem with barrel distortion or flaring. It works just fine on my D200 too, albeit being much less wide. --Andrew Andrew Prokos Photography

I am just about to buy one of these lenses for use on my Nikon D70s (primarily) and Nikon F80 (less so) and having spent many weeks researching wide angles, I decided this was for me. However, I have just read Martin Wong's comment above about using it on a D70. Is it really no better than the kit lens? Is this an exaggeration (bearing in mind this lens costs around $400 give or take) or have others got experience of this too? Am I really no better off with it over the kit lens? I find that hard to believe?

This comment is a reply to Ted Smith.

I've been doing some research on this lens and the 20mm AF to use on my F90x and my D200. Turns out that these two lenses are wonderful performers on film. However, its a different story on digital as their results become just ok. I'm not sure about the reason behind it but if you're only shooting digital, i advise you to think DX lenses as they are optimized for digital. So, looking for a sharp wide angle? Better start saving for a 17-55. This lens basically gives you the sharpest wide angle you could get from a nikon digital.

Hope you find this helpful.

As for me, I have just ordered a used 24mm AF-D in a great condition from adorama. Cant wait to get my hands on her as my velvia 50's are just waiting in the fridge for a wide lens to honor them.

Saad.

"i advise you to thin* DX lenses as they are optimized for digital"

Thin = Think

sorry about the typo.

I REALLY disappointed this lens with my D90. It is not the lens for digital.

I used this lens for my film camera and get very good result, but when I tried this on my D90, the image it produced is dull and colorless, for many images and many settings I tried, the result is just as dull as the first time.

So, you'd better avoid this one on your digital cameras.