Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,859   Online: 953
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    165

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

    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

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Westminster, Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,504
    Get the f/2.8

    I have owned both. My f/2.0 was never sharp.
    When I grow up, I want to be a photographer.

    http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Photography/index.html

  3. #3
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    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.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    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

  5. #5
    yeknom02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    State College, PA, United States
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    308
    Images
    5
    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.
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST
    My Flickr Gallery

  6. #6
    Carl V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    73
    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.
    Carl.

  7. #7
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    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!

  8. #8
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl V View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    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.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    709
    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....

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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