Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,555   Posts: 1,545,015   Online: 724
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    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.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  2. #12
    Canuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Great White North
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    201
    For my money, I'd choose the 2.0 as most of my shooting is under available light and usually low light at that.

  3. #13
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Moore
    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.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Moore
    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.

  5. #15
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by pelerin
    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.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  6. #16
    bobfowler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New Jersey, Land of the Living Dead
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,440
    Images
    19
    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.
    Bob Fowler
    fowler@verizon.net
    Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Moore
    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.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    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.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    368
    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

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,240
    Images
    9
    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.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin