Happy Mother's Day! Happy Father's Day! Happy Graduation! Photo.net has great photography gift ideas for the Mom, Dad, or Grad in your life. Shop for camera bags, lenses, DSLRs, and more...
Editor's note: This excerpt first appeared in photographer and author Harold Davis' recent Focal Press book, Photographing Flowers: Exploring Macro Photography with Harold Davis.
The closer you...
I did
a "save as" on my
20/2.8 review so if you've already read
that, you're going to be experiencing deja vu all over again...
There isn't a whole lot to say about a fixed 24 lens. Nikon's is sharp and
contrasty. All of Nikon's "very wide" lenses have "close-range correction" (CRC).
This is a "floating element" that moves relative to the other pieces of glass
inside the lens as you focus. Most lenses just move a whole rack of optics in and
out as you focus. They are optimized for subjects 3 meters away but perform
adequately at infinity or close-up. I don't understand optics, but I know that
this doesn't work for extreme wide angles. You lose a lot of optical quality
close up if you don't change the configuration. This is very important because
most of the interesting pictures that one can take with a 24 are "near-far"
images, with a relatively close main subject and an interesting background far
away.
Photojournalism has been getting wider and
wider over the years; 24 is not even "very wide" anymore. Wide angle lenses are
good for showing a group of people, one or two people close up, and the
background. Of course,
the
perspective is not always the most flattering.
A 24 is beginning to be adequate for taking pix of people in tight
spaces. At left, I managed to get a snapshot of the driver in a 3-man submarine
in the
Cayman Islands. More of the time, I find
myself needing 20 or even a 14 or 15mm rectilinear wide angle.
Architecture
If you forgot your perspective correction
lens, you can sometimes get an adequate undistorted image of a tall building by
backing up, holding the camera level, and cropping after you get home (see Ghost
Ranch photo below). This works better with a 20 held, though. The 24 is OK for
ranch-style houses like my friend Bob's here on
Grand
Cayman.
The price
I stole my 24/2.8 from a friend of mine. I think it is normally about half the
price of the 20/2.8, i.e., about $250. Off-brand lenses are much much cheaper
than manufacturer wide angles. That's because they don't have a floating element
(see above) and hence are incapable of quality results when focussed close.
An alternative
I've become very fond of my Canon EOS 20-35/2.8 zoom. Not because of the
optical quality, which is obviously less than the Nikon fixed 24/2.8, but because
of the flexibility. Nikon's 20-35/2.8 zoom is allegedly marvelous. That's what I
would buy today instead of a fixed 24 if I had 8X the money to spend. However,
don't be tempted to substitute an off-brand 20-35 zoom for the Nikon 24. You
won't get comparable results.
I would not buy the Nikon 28 AF lens. For starters, 28 isn't really
dramatically wide anymore for viewers who've seen modern movies and still images.
Secondly, did you ever notice how cheap the original Nikon 28 AF was compared to
their old MF 28 lenses? That's because Nikon decided that their AF customers were
unwashed slobs who wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they left out the
floating element (CRC). The latest D version of the 28AF allegedly has the CRC
element and they've upped the price a bit.
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.
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.
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.).
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....
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?
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.
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.
The 24 AFD 2.8 is about as good on film and digital (D700+D80 for me), even compared to DX and Zeiss ZF. Resolution at centre is very high even at 5400 dpi scans (aliasing at +100 lp/mm) and still remarkable to the periphery at f/5.6-11. In this range it is the best 24-25 mm SRL lens result I saw.
The colour is always OK, better than the kit lenses; the "dull" contrast appearance may result from the high micro-contrast at 10-30 lp/mm of the 24 AFD, which may mask lower frequencies expecially with ADR on. In addition, plase not add much Nikon sharpening in-camera, but use an external refined sharpener at 0.3-0.5 pixel scale.
Its main defects are the lateral CA and flare, on the same level as the new 24-70 AFS. The ZF 28 2 has more sharpness and more vivid contrast in the centre, but less quality in the far corners on landscapes and architecture. Anyway, SLR 24 mm lenses are seldom used near TA by good photographers, in my opinion, due to their typical targets.
So the 24 AFD seems still one of the best and versatile lenses.
I find that the 24mm complements both a DX or FX package. Using it on a D7000 or D90 makes for a compact package offering a moderate 36mm equivalent focal range. Although the bokeh and flare are not the best, this lens does produce excellent sharpness even at f/2.8
I think the new 24mm f/1.4G is not something one should compare. This lens offers a more compact package than the newer f/1.4G.
