Nikon 24mm ai - Really?

[yessammassey]

I like to think that I am not extremely picky about my 35mm film gear, but this Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 ai is leaving me a little underwhelmed. I read on the internet that it was a great lens. Looking at photos taken with this lens on Flickr sold me on it. The EX condition copy that I purchased seemed to have very soft, smeary corners with lots of coma and distortion, and these effects were most pronounced at any distance greater than about 2.5-3 meters. Vignetting clears up by f/5.6 but the aberrations are pronounced all the way out to f/11, and there's not much difference - to my eyes - between f/4 and f/8 in terms of corner performance.

Here are some example photos,

f/5.6..

f/8..

f/11 (getting better)..

I basically can't find any photos on Flicker taken with this lens, that show anywhere near the level of degraded corner performance that one may see here in these photos. I thought that maybe I just had a bad copy, but I tried out another one that was in better overall cosmetic condition, thinking that maybe the first copy had misaligned elements or something. But the new copy was just about as bad.

So I'm wondering...

If you're familiar with this lens, is this the kind of performance you'd expect? Is everyone on Flickr just shooting at f/11 and smaller? ... I do see that most of the Flickr Nikkor 24 shooters are using the AI-S version, but it's optically pretty much identical to the AI, right?

For reference, here's a shot from my Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8... the 'inferior' newer 5-element version. I believe this is at f/8. The corners seem to hold up much better.

 

[frank]

I wouldn't be happy with that either. Maybe it has a decentered element.
I jumped over the 24mm length and use 28's and 20's.

 

[williaty]

I have a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AI. It is considerably better in the corners than what you show there.

This many years on, you've got to wonder how many of them haven't been dropped and knocked completely out of optical alignment. That, coupled with the fact that looking at things on monitors at 100% has completely redefined what we require for sharpness, probably explains why it has a good reputation and you've managed to look at 2 bad copies.

 

[jimjm]

I'm gonna guess your lens has some problems, or has been damaged in some way.

I have the pre-AI Nikkor-N version and it's one of the few lenses that has really exceeded my expectations. This is a scan of a darkroom print, shot at f:8 with the sun just out of frame. GREAT contrast, no smearing that I can see ... some distortion, but it's a 24mm lens so you just need to learn to love it's character.

 

[jeztastic]

My friend bought one for his D7000 but got rid of it pretty quick as he had the same problems. He had different standards to me, but still and of course on d*g*tal. If you want a sharp manual 24mm look no further than the Sigma 24mm 2.8 Super Wide. It stands up incredibly well on full frame digital let alone film. The colours are a little cold and it flares easily, but I use that and a Pentax 50 1.7 for everything now.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Remember, the rear element is floating on a 24mm Nikkor, to help with close-range sharpness. It's likely that your rear element needs to be realigned, even if it's an EX grade copy. If you got it from KEH, and it's still under warranty, consider sending it back to them either for repair or to be replaced with a different copy. My 24/2, which is a lens that most people say isn't that great, happens to be quite good, even on the D-word cameras.

-J

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I just went and looked at some shots made with my 24 f2.8 Ai. Considerably better results than you got. I'd send it back for repair or replacement.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
I owned that lens and sold it for the 24mm f2 AI. I was disappointed with Nikon's MF 24mm lenses as well, they did not perform as well in the corners or sides as my Minolta 24mm f2.8 MD, or my 24mm f2.8 Olympus Zukio. I found that MF Nikkor wides in general do not perform that well at infinity. They shine if your subject is 10-15' away. I shoot landscapes, usually using these wides on my D750 and leaving medium format for film. My personal favorite Nikkor for infinity shooting is the 28mm f2 AI, it's sharper than the higher rated 28mm f2.8 AIs at infinity. Getting back to your 24mm f2.8, the best you can do is stick to f5.6-f8 and if possible use a tripod and MLU. The new Nikon 24mm f1.4? Is supposed to be a gem, if money is no object.
Regards,
Rick

 

[darkroommike]

Could even have been "serviced" by some ham-fisted mook at his kitchen table.

 

[CMoore]

Ham-Fisted Mook.
That's awfully strong language for this time in the mooring, isn't it.?

 

[flavio81]

Yuck, that must be a bad sample.

For what it's worth, i owned the Canon FD 24/2.8, which is contemporary to the Nikon 24/2.8 AI, and the Canon had excellent overall performance and very low distortion. Also, the FD 28/2.8 is optically superb. And then they said that in general Nikon makes better wideangles...

Anyway, you should try to get a different copy. People are generally very happy with the preceding Nikkor-N-C 24/2.8 so the AI version should be as good. The Nikkor-N-C is a beauty!!

 

[flavio81]

Remember, the rear element is floating on a 24mm Nikkor, to help with close-range sharpness. It's likely that your rear element needs to be realigned, even if it's an EX grade copy.

You hit the nail in the head.


Probably somebody dissaasembled it for cleaning and messed with that alignment.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AI. It is considerably better in the corners than what you show there.

This many years on, you've got to wonder how many of them haven't been dropped and knocked completely out of optical alignment. That, coupled with the fact that looking at things on monitors at 100% has completely redefined what we require for sharpness, probably explains why it has a good reputation and you've managed to look at 2 bad copies.

mine is also.Somethingis wrong with your lenses

 

[TheTrailTog]

Hmmm... I have a Pre-Ai K-Type, which I believe is the same lens formula/configuration, and I love it. If you tried 2 and both were disappointingly the same, perhaps I just got lucky with mine?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I' ve had several of these of both formulas and have worked on all of them. Something is wrong; all of mine had much better performance. In cleaning mine you can see that the retaining rings for the elements have scribe marks from the factory that indicate how much torque needed to twist the retaining ring. Making sure those original scribe marks align properly is needed for proper and optimum sharpness. It doesn't take much with wide angles for reduced performance.

 

[yessammassey]

Thanks for the replies. Good to know I am not going crazy. But getting two bad copies in a row sure does seem like some rotten luck. No way to return either of them, unfortunately. What a waste. I guess the Minolta stands as the only functional wide angle in my 35mm collection for now.

Still have a 65mm K/L and Mamiya rb67 for more critical WA applications, at least. But it's a monster compared to even the heaviest Nikon setups.

...

Even if I could fix the 24, I think the poster above who diverged at the split and went for a 20mm and 28mm (specifically the 28/2, which seems to be accounted as one of the best 35mm WA primes from that era) instead, laid out the way I want to go now.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

You may be able to salvage the 24mm lenses you have; I found with the many i've worked on the trick of tightening or re-setting those retaining rings can really enhance or degrade performance; the use of a digital body for instant feedback is very helpful. I had a Nikon EL 50mm f/2.8N enlarging lens that was far below normal performance and it was brand new in box with papers that I got for cheap off of @bay site. I forgot about the lens but had it marked with a note; when I needed an extra lens for a Leitz Valloy enlarger I opened the lens and discovered one set of elements that was quite loose not rattling loose but almost, a quick twist to a proper tighten and a test and I was shocked to see the improvement. With wide angles especially the element spacing is crucial and critical for max performance.

Yes I have 2 or 3 28mm f/2 and it is a fantastic lens film and digital. I prefer the older N version for the durable build and I'd recommend not getting the Ai version since the internals can be more challenging to work on. The Ai-s version is mechanically sound.

 

[gorbas]

Around 1988 I bought Nikkor Ai 2.8/24mm to replace Tamron adaptal 2 - 2.5/24mm. Tamron was way better lens, especialy after f4!
Then in 1994 I bought Nikkor AiS 2.8/24 and it was way better lens than Ai version. Im not sure did they changed formulation of the AiS lens or it was just sample variation? Can you find another lens from a friend or somebody to make comparison?

 

[cooltouch]

I have a 24mm f/2.8 AI that I bought over 20 years ago and one of the things I've noticed about it is its corner sharpness isn''t the greatest, even at f/8, which is where I think most lenses are at their sharpest. Here's a pic I shot several years ago. Camera was an F2 and film was Ektar 100.

But it's only in the very corners, so I never worried about it all that much. Besides, I own two other 24mm's that seem to outtperform this one, a Canon FD 24/2.8 and a Tamron 24/2.5, so I always have those two I can use if I'm worried about it.

 

[CMoore]

Beautiful Caboose.
Wow...never even heard of MKT...and they were a Class 1 Railroad for many years.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

yes the Tamron 24mm is a very good lens I've had a couple and tested in comparison to the Nikon. My personal preference was towards the Nikon but the Tamron is a fine optic. Although the Nikkor 24mm formula has officially only had 2 versions ( I prefer the older N.C version but its horses for courses) I do feel that the Ai version is not as strong an optic; perhaps the quality control during the Ai period was an issue.

 

[nsurit]

Can't add anything about your lens problem, however it is nice seeing the headwaters of the San Marcos river, a river I've been swimming in for close to seventy years.

 

[cooltouch]

Beautiful Caboose.
Wow...never even heard of MKT...and they were a Class 1 Railroad for many years.

Wish I could tell you more about it. The caboose is located in a small park in Katy, Texas. Katy's about 30 miles west of Houston and, prior to being turned into a bedroom community for the Houston megalopolis, it was one of the largest rice-growing regions in the country. Still is, I think. There is still a pretty large railroad facility next to some tall rice silos, located not far from where this caboose is located.

 

[CMoore]

10-4.....thank you

 

[dynachrome]

I can't tell from the photos shown by the OP whether these were shot on film. I have a 24/2.8 NC and a 24/2.8 AIS. Both are very good. The subjects shown in the photos do not lend themselves very well to testing a lens. They are of natural scenes with irregular shapes. A tree branch or leaf may also move with even a little wind. There seems to be a kind of discovery, mostly by younger picture takers, of all kinds of defects in older lenses. Their tests are usually not made with film cameras. Have lenses improved over time? Yes they have. The biggest improvement has been in zoom lenses. I'll give examples of some of my Nikkors to show older lenses which are still very good with film even by today's standards: 28mm f/2 'K', 35/2.8 'K', 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor, 105/2.5 AI, 105/4 Micro Nikkkor (any version), 200/4 QC/compact 'K'/AI. I will single out the 55/2.8. With some Ektar 100 film and proper use the 55/2.8 is capable of producing a very large high quality print. If the subject allows for it I could use a Bronica GS-1 with the standard 100/3.5 and the same Ektar 100 film. This would allow an even larger print but recent improvements do not take anything away from the 55/2.8 or the other Nikkors, including the 24/2.8 AIS.