nikon 24mm f2 ais vs nikon 24mm f2.8

[pollux]

I am trying to decide between these lenses. The f2.8 is cheaper, however can people chip in if they have evaluated these lenses one or both? What difference is at stake here? Finally do they both have a hard infinity focus stop? thanks

 

[Pinholemaster]

Get the f/2.8

I have owned both. My f/2.0 was never sharp.

 

[2F/2F]

Yes, both have a hard infinity stop.

They are both good lenses. I'd get the 2.8 unless you need f/2, because it is cheaper, and performs slightly better in terms of distortion, flare, and wide open sharpness.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

I have both and have never seen any evidence that the f/2 is "never sharp". That said the 2.8 has nothing to apologize for; it is magnificent. The 2.8 might be a bit sharper at 2.8 than is the 2 which can help if you shoot wide open a lot but it stinks at f/2 . The 2.8 is also smaller, lighter and usually a lot cheaper. F/2s are a lot sexier than 2.8s. Don't think this is not a factor here; 2s are going up in price because people are buying them up.

If you are really flush I'd get the f/2 because you can always get a 2.8 later. Otherwise, the 2.8 is the better choice in every case unless YOUR photographic needs require the extra stop for exposure or your eyes need it for viewing or you don't want/need/care about maximum lens resolution. Either one delivers for Tri-X and that is what I shoot. I never pay attention to tonal or color qualities because Nikkors have never given me any reason to complain about them. Either one, enjoy!


s-a

 

[yeknom02]

I've heard a lot of similar things as you're reading here, so I went with the f/2.8. I haven't regretted it for a second, and I was able to get a second lens at the same time.

 

[Carl V]

I have the f/2.8 version of the 24mm lens and can highly recommend it - an outstanding lens.

With regards to an f/2 vs f/2.8 comparison, I can only tell you about the 28mm wide-angles as I have both of these and they are just as sharp as one another, so I'm assuming the same is to be found with the 24mm equivalents.

 

[vpwphoto]

THere are "sample variations" I had a 28-70mm that wasn't sharp to my tastes.
Anyway I'd get the 2.8.
Spend the money of fast telephotos... they are great wide open 105. 1.8 is my damn staple lens anymore.
I don't own a "wide mouth" 50mm anymore.. the 55 2.8 is so bloody sharp... and CHEAP!

 

[vpwphoto]

I have the f/2.8 version of the 24mm lens and can highly recommend it - an outstanding lens.

With regards to an f/2 vs f/2.8 comparison, I can only tell you about the 28mm wide-angles as I have both of these and they are just as sharp as one another, so I'm assuming the same is to be found with the 24mm equivalents.

Can not make assumptions, and why there are so many here that can give the facts as they know it.

 

[Jeremy]

The f/2 has more flare and is not very sharp wide open towards the corners. Plus, this lens isn't a flat-field so you can't focus in the center and re-compose or it will be off at f/2 due to spherical aberration. Personally, I shot with the f/2 for a long time because I needed the extra stop while photographing bands in dive bars and it's great for that. If you're wanting a wide angle lens for architecture or you aren't wanting the look of a 24mm @ f/2 (I did and I wanted the flare, too!) go for the 24mm f/2.8. At f/8 I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two lenses.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

My experience is similar to Jeremy's. The 24 2.8 is a wonderful all-around lens, and its still decently fast and pretty good wide open. The f/2 at 2.8 is about equal perhaps a bit less sharp, but wide open or 1/3 stop down in low light close in has a compelling look to it. I might shoot that tomorrow now that we are talking about it....

 

[2F/2F]

If you want or need f/2.0 for your work, the fast wides are definitely usable. I love my 28mm f/2.0. It is as sharp as I need at any f stop. But if you don't want or need f/2.0, the 2.8 is technically the better performer, and cheaper.

 

[Carl V]

Can not make assumptions, and why there are so many here that can give the facts as they know it.

Yes, true. I was merely trying to give an opinion on the 28mm lenses as I only have the f/2.8 version of the 24mm, so cannot honestly say how good the f/2 equivalent is.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I don't have Nikon stuff, but my Canon 2.8 FD 24 is very good in all!

Jeff

 

[budrichard]

I'm on my second 24mm f.28 in 40+ years. I purchased one of the first ones available and it took about 65% of all my shots. It's simply the best SLR lens for me.
I now use a Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH a lot but that's only because I use an M7 a lot. If I get a 1.4 WA, it's probably yogin to be a Lieca simply for the noise factor of the M7 versus a Nikon.-Dick

 

[aroth87]

I've got a 24/2.8 AIS. Its not the sharpest lens I own, but it never disappoints. Mine's not exactly pristine though, it had a dented filter ring when I bought it and it once tumble out of my jacket pocket and nearly bounced out the back of a moving truck. Even so, its sharp enough for me at f/2.8 and I've never had a problem with flare.

I'll add my vote for saving your money and getting the 2.8 unless you need the speed of the 2.0.

Adam

 

[tessar]

What aroth87 said. The 24/2.8 has been one of my favorite lenses for something like 20 years. I got mine well used (newspaper photographer) but it has never disappointed me.

 

[BradleyK]

I, too, have owned both. I only opted for the 24 F/2 because I got a steal of a deal on the lens. If given the choice now, I would probably opt for the 2.8 and load up on some extra Tri-X. Where the 24 F/2.8 really excels over the F/2 is its use in macro work: throw a reversal ring on the baby and get some serious magnification!

 

[djacobox372]

I own the f2, and the extra stop is a huge advantage, i wouldnt replace it for a tiny bit of extra sharpness at f2.8

 

[perkeleellinen]

With these sorts of choices I tend to go for smallest and lightest, but here there isn't that much difference between the two. I've handled both but only ever shot the 2.8, when you hold them both together they are very similar in size with the 52mm filter thread and seem about the same weight give or take. The 2.8 is currently my favourite lens and my 'normal' focal length, I often use it with the thin K1 ring which is great for close ups.

 

[Pumalite]

My vote is for the f/2. But I like "Special Effects" wide open.

 

[Thingy]

I think it depends upon what you will be photographing and in particular if you will need to focus it in low light. Whilst the slower lens is better quality around the edges at low apertures, it is much easier to focus the f2 model in poor lighting. I use mine exclusivly for interior shots (as I use my Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AIS lens). Having soft edges is not always a negative attribute - it can be creativly used to focus the viewer's attention on a key subject in the photograph. If you ever venture into large format photography, wide angle lenses usually require a centre filter to avoid the fall-off in lighting around the edges of an image - however these filters are optional. If you are photographing a subject that needs even illumination in the print, then you can add the filter, but by not using the centre filter you can draw the viewer's attention to a key part of your final print. If you think of the Nikkor 24mm f2 in this way, it might help.

Ideally, I'd buy BOTH.

 

[Pumalite]

I have the f/2.8 too.

 

[pollux]

i will buy the f2.8 as one can use faster film, and its less than 1 stop anyway.

 

[KanFotog]

When you guys say 24/2.8 do you mean the AF-D version or AI-S?
Is there a noticeable difference in performance between those versions apart from ease of focusing?