Nikon 24mm lenses

[psychfunk]

Are there any differences, besides the obvious, between the 24mm F2.8D AF and the older version that did not have the Distance info chip (24mm F2.8 AF)?

 

[brian steinberger]

Optically? No.

 

[John cox]

You don't get 3d matrix metering on the non D. The D shares distance information from the lens with compatible meters.

 

[F/1.4]

You might want to consider the 28mm f/1.8G...really nice lens, cheap too.

 

[psychfunk]

Ordered the Non-D version, 3D metering isn't a big deal to me as I don't shoot much with flash, it was the optics I was wondering about.
And G lenses were out of the question as it has to work with my MF Nikons too.

Thanks

 

[BMbikerider]

If you go right back in time to when the Vietnam War was on, there was a story about the Nikon 24mm and 50mm being designed to have a noticeably sharper centre than the edges so as to concentrate the eye on the important bits. This is only a story told possibly many times so I don't know if it has any truth in it

 

[benjiboy]

If you go right back in time to when the Vietnam War was on, there was a story about the Nikon 24mm and 50mm being designed to have a noticeably sharper centre than the edges so as to concentrate the eye on the important bits. This is only a story told possibly many times so I don't know if it has any truth in it

I thought due to the laws of physics lenses couldn't be sharper at the edge than in the centre.

 

[psychfunk]

I don't have a time machine, but even if it's not pin sharp at the edges, I'd imagine it's adequate.

As for the physics, I have always assumed it's very difficult to get sharp edges but I've no idea of the science itself..

 

[budrichard]

If you go right back in time to when the Vietnam War was on, there was a story about the Nikon 24mm and 50mm being designed to have a noticeably sharper centre than the edges so as to concentrate the eye on the important bits. This is only a story told possibly many times so I don't know if it has any truth in it

'Urban Legend" although I have never heard this story.
I purchased one of the first 24mm f2.8 Nikkors on the market for both reportage and weddings.
Back then it almost instantly became one of the 'must have' lenses for a newspaper photographer. Excellent wide open for reproduction on newsprint, with f2.8 for TRI-X, I took sbout 60% of my shots with this lens. A normal 50mm lens was not used much, at least for me.
For weddings with flash, it was and still is great to capture group portraits.-Dick

 

[kivis]

It gets a bad rap but I have had my Nikkor 24/2 Ai for years. Love it.

 

[NB23]

It gets a bad rap but I have had my Nikkor 24/2 Ai for years. Love it.

That is the lens with the most unique boke ever. I love it. Unbeatable.

 

[gzhuang]

Sigma Super Wide 24mm F2.8

An amazing but under-rated lens with great bokeh wide open at the minimum focusing distance of 7 inches.

 

[narsuitus]

Sigma Super Wide 24mm F2.8

If 24mm is a "super wide," is the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 an "extra super wide?"

 

[gzhuang]

If 24mm is a "super wide," is the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 an "extra super wide?"

You are absolutely right. Sigma should have named the lens as finding fault with naming conventions wide angle lens in your honor.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

It gets a bad rap but I have had my Nikkor 24/2 Ai for years. Love it.

It does get a bad rap doesn't it. I never knew if that was the case because it really couldn't equal the f/2.8 or if it was just envy since it was pretty dang pricey.

s-a

 

[BradleyK]

I've been shooting with the 24mm F2 Ais for years. I had no earthly idea I had such a substandard piece of glass in my bag. I wish I'd known its reputation before I purchased the lens. Odd, though, it always struck me as being quite sharp; but then, I take photographs - MTF charts don't really interest me.

 

[Sean Mac]

I've been shooting with the 24mm F2 Ais for years. I had no earthly idea I had such a substandard piece of glass in my bag. [snip.]

I had a 24mm F2.8 and apparently they're terrible too.

Fortunately I gave it to my nephew. A basic starter kit of FM2n and 24F2.8/50F1.8/85F1.8 lenses.

It seemed a fine lens to me. I don't have a lot of use for anything shorter than 50mm but sometimes a 24mm is a better choice. At the moment I have a FM2n with 50F1.4/85F1.8.

The 2:1 ratio seems to work for me. 24/50/85/180 seems a reasonable range. Happily the 180.f2.8 ED is easy to find.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have a 24 f2.8 that I use for analogue and DX digital. It's an Ai that's been chipped so usable on every Nikon I own from F to D. One of my favorites that rarely sits on the shelf. Always attached to a body. I'm no professional and the photos it takes are fine for me and make me happy. All I ever ask of gear.

 

[benveniste]

At some point around 2001 or 2002, Nikon upgraded the coatings on the 24mm f/2.8D from the older NIC to the current SIC coatings. The optical formula of the 24mm f/2.8D Nikkor dates back to 1977, which makes it the oldest optical design of the current F-mount Nikkors.

 

[macfred]

I have a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AI-S for about 25 years - it's a really useful lens.
It was good enough for Galen Rowell - so it is for me : http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

... lighter and with less flare than the 24mm ƒ2.0 ...

Galen once said that a high percentage of his best images could have probably been made with only a 24mm and an 80-200 zoom.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I thought due to the laws of physics lenses couldn't be sharper at the edge than in the centre.

You can certainly have a lens sharper at edges than center:

Focus at the edge using a lens with a significant amount of field curvature.

 

[BradleyK]

I have a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AI-S for about 25 years - it's a really useful lens.
It was good enough for Galen Rowell - so it is for me : http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

... lighter and with less flare than the 24mm ƒ2.0 ...

Galen once said that a high percentage of his best images could have probably been made with only a 24mm and an 80-200 zoom.

+1. On the 80-200 Nikkors. I had the 80-200 F4.5 Ai when I first started out and found the lens to be a first-rate performer. I later donated the lens to my eldest nephew when I got him started in photography (along with a nice black F2A as his "starter camera" lol). I later picked up a used 4.0 AIs copy for a song (also a stellar performer), and have used it quite frequently, even though the lens has been joined by its AF-D 2.8 ED sibling.

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

The 24/2 AI is a great low-light lens. Bad rep it gets comes from the claims that it can't get equally sharp in the center and at the edges at the same time. Personally, I couldn't care less. My lens is all beat up, with loose aperture ring and stiff focus ring, but it does everything it's supposed to and does it really well.

 

[mdarnton]

The 24/2.8 was very early on changed to be the very first commercially-manufactured lens to have a floating element. to help maintain a flat field at all distances. It was one of Nikon's best lenses at the time, and as such, I don't believe they've changed the formula since it was first made, up to now. Any myth about it being inferior in any way is BS.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

It has two optical versions. the older one has more 'thick' elements and the newer one has thinner elements, same grouping and element count. I owned multiple copies of all versions and I prefer the first optical version with the NIC coating but all are fine lenses even today.