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

[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.

[Kiron Kid]

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.