Nikkor 24mm f2 vs. Nikkor 24mm f2.8

[Ara Ghajanian]

I'm just trying to decide which one to get. I'd love to have the one extra stop, but the price is steep. What do you Nikkor heads think?
Ara

 

[André E.C.]

I think they`re both great, depend for what you need either!
Read on!

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/24mmnikkor/index.htm


Cheers

André

 

[jd callow]

knot to pick knits, but f2.8 to f2 is about a half stop. sorry I am no help

 

[Nicole]

I would not spend the extra money for just half a stop. If it were a 1.8 or 1.4, then definitely yes. But it depends on how much you really really want it.

 

[Claire Senft]

HUH?

Since when has f2 compared to f2.8 beome a half of a stop?

 

[Nicole]

ooops

 

[MattCarey]

I recall a comment somewhere by Galen Rowell either on the 24mm or the 20mm. The extra stop made the lens bigger, heavier and more prone to flare. For landscapes, it doesn't buy you much anyway, as you are more likely to be stopped down. What is the application you have in mind?

Here's the link I was thinking of:
http://mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

Matt

 

[geraldatwork]

2.8 to 2.0 is a full stop. I have a Nikkor 28/2.8 and it is a wonderful lens. I'm sure the quality of both are equally good. Only you can decide as you know how much money you have available vs how often you would need the extra stop. You could always use faster film but again only you know how large your prints need to be. If you asked me get the faster lens as it is not my money. I know this isn't much help.

 

[jd callow]

knot to pick knits, but f2.8 to f2 is about a half stop. sorry I am no help

my mistake it is a full stop...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd go for the 2.0, not just because it's faster and lets you use slower film or shoot in low light, but because it will give you the option of limiting DOF, if you like that effect.

 

[Jeremy]

There is also the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 which I just happen to have for sale...

It's a great lens, but I no longer own a Nikon 35mm body.

 

[Canuck]

For my money, I'd choose the 2.0 as most of my shooting is under available light and usually low light at that.

 

[Jeremy]

There is also the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 which I just happen to have for sale...

It's a great lens, but I no longer own a Nikon 35mm body.

Just wanted to add that I used to shoot a 24mm f/2 on a digibody for low available light photo-J work and I loved that lens. It did much worse than the 24 f/2.8 with flare, but with a shade it was great lens.

 

[pelerin]

Just wanted to add that I used to shoot a 24mm f/2 on a digibody for low available light photo-J work and I loved that lens. It did much worse than the 24 f/2.8 with flare, but with a shade it was great lens.

Hi Ara,
I have not found the sample that I have to be particularily flare prone, but I always use the correct Nikon shade. I do not have any optical test instruments to confirm or deny my feelings however. I do find that that the brighter finder image is helpful in focusing accurately.
Celac.

 

[Jeremy]

Hi Ara,
I have not found the sample that I have to be particularily flare prone, but I always use the correct Nikon shade. I do not have any optical test instruments to confirm or deny my feelings however. I do find that that the brighter finder image is helpful in focusing accurately.
Celac.

I wouldn't say flare prone for normal use, just more likely to have flare when shooting INTO a point source light (it was used mostly for theatre photography)--this was also a lens owned by the paper and there were scratches and "cleaning" marks on it that added to the problem. I definitely agree about the ease of focus with the f/2.

 

[bobfowler]

I use the 24mm f/2.8. It's smaller and lighter than the f/2 version, plus it still has (actually had before the f/2 version even existed) the close range correction floating element design.

Anyway, it's a wonderful lens.

 

[pelerin]

I wouldn't say flare prone for normal use, just more likely to have flare when shooting INTO a point source light (it was used mostly for theatre photography)--this was also a lens owned by the paper and there were scratches and "cleaning" marks on it that added to the problem. I definitely agree about the ease of focus with the f/2.

Jeremy,
"Owned by the paper" eh? The only scenario that serves as a more brutal test of durability is using it in a highschool photo program. The death rate on that stuff is phenomenal. I know I have photos of architectural interiors that will include a point light source within the frame. I'll have to look at a few and see.
Celac.

 

[Lee Shively]

I've owned two f/2.8's. I wore them both out. I still have lens number 2, rattles and loose elements and all. Small, light weight and sharp--they were my favorite Nikkor lenses.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I have and use the Nikon 24mm f/2, and love it. If you want something much cheaper, yet still very good, look a the Kiron 24mm f/2. A very good lens too.

Kiron Kid

 

[mark]

I have the 2.8 and it kicks butt. Period. I especially like that it was more compact than the 2.0. Lighter too. You won't go wrong with either of them. I love the look.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm just trying to decide which one to get. I'd love to have the one extra stop, but the price is steep. What do you Nikkor heads think?
Ara

Buy the 2.8 Nikkor, I have used one for nearly twenty years, and it has been more than adequate,It's lighter cheaper, and most probably apature for apature will outperform the f2 version

 

[Russ - SVP]

I'm just trying to decide which one to get. I'd love to have the one extra stop, but the price is steep. What do you Nikkor heads think?
Ara

I love my Nikon 24mm f/2. Every bit a sharp as the f/2.8 version. Also, the Kiron 24mm f/2 is very good, and much cheaper than the Nikon equivalent.

Kiron Kid

 

[gnashings]

I doubt a shallow DOF is really much of an option on a 24mm anyway, at least in any useable terms. The extra stop is nice, but not worth the money unless money is not an issue. I was just reading your thread on the blad dilema, so I assume you are not sitting on a million dollar disposable income - in which case the choice is obvious.
The only real argument I can make for the f2 is that in the same conditions that call for a 2.8 app, the f2 will be stopped down a bit, where as the 2.8 wide open.
If you are thinking landscapes or anything outside, I would say 2.8, especially on a short little lens that you can hand hold to 1/30 anyway, and could probably squeeze a 1/15 with something to lean on - not to mention that landscapes without a good tripod are a bit of a problem.
If you are going to do some realy funky indoor, available light stuff, well, that f2 might come in handy... but how often?
I had the same issue with a 28mm Canon lens that I was thinking of buying recently...f2 vsf2.8... and I know one stopis twice the light... but does it justify almost three times the money? For me, in my current situation - no. Tobe honest though, there is something neat about owning a special piece of equipment, just a bit better, just a bit more rare... perhaps its shallow, snobbish, etc... but I know that my 80-200 "L" series lens is my baby and I sometimes take it out of the case just to play with it... although I shoot my 50mm 90% of the time! Yes, I am weak little human