Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SFL

Is Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D as good or better….?

Recommended Posts

I am currently using a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 with my D800 and very happy with the quality the lens produces, 

except the weight (I can live with it at the moment) and the edge softness at 24mm end (at 100%).

 

I've been contemplating to get perhaps a secondhand 24mm f/2.8 AFD.

However Ken Rockwell's comment 'It (24mm f/2.8 AFD is as sharp as the 24-70mm f2.8 AFS at 24mm' stops me from

going ahead as I don't want waste if it is the case.

  1. I would like to hear 1st hand in real world experience from you who use/used both lenses. I don't want to purchase a 24mm f/1.4 because of its price.
  2. Of course the softness at 100% viewing (24-70 at 24mm) is not noticeable when you view the image at print size.  I would like to ask printing experts amongst you from which print size this edge softness (at 24mm of 24-70mm) becomes an issue?  I don't print any images myself but previously I used a pro lab for all my prints.  
  3. Recently I started upload my images to FAA, and with the files from D800, it says it can print unto 72 inches (longest side) which must be at approx @100dpi.  I know the viewing distance increases as the print size gets bigger, but is it really good to offer this size (let's assume image IQ is good)?  The late Bruce Fraser once said 'In the case of photogs, the ideal viewing distance limited only by the length of the photog's nose.'  But I think to some extent it applies to general public too when they view prints.

Thanks

 

Sung

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aftaid I can't do you a comparison but I use the 24mm 2.8 AFD on a D800 and it is very very good if not pefect. I've also got an older 24 mm 2.8 AIS lens which is virtually identical. There is slight softness towards the edges in comparison to the centre noticeable at 100% on screen but not noticeable on even a moderate downsampling to say 6000 pixels.  When I compare my images at 100% from the 24 to those taken with a 50mm 1.4AFD, there is a noticable sharpness difference on the edges but that is to be expected. The 50mm is just about perfect edge to edge except for the extreme corners. You do, however, need to be careful with focusing for optimum results on the D800 as you undoubtedly already know. I'm talking completely unsharpened raw images by the way. 

 

I never go for the fastest lenses as I almost always use a tripod and the extra stop or two makes little difference. The advantages of price and lightness with optics that are probably as good if not better than the faster relations are the deciding factors. Flare is not a problem except shooting directly into bright light. It is really light and you can probably get a decent bargain secondhand. 

 

I did consider some of the non-Nikkor 24mm prime lenses available last year but, having read some detailed reviews, I didn't figure I would be getting anything better and the prices were higher. Good sharpness across the frame at f11 was my main criterion. Lens reviews give marks for other aspects of a lens besides sharpness. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently using a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 with my D800 and very happy with the quality the lens produces, 

except the weight (I can live with it at the moment) and the edge softness at 24mm end (at 100%).

 

I've been contemplating to get perhaps a secondhand 24mm f/2.8 AFD.

However Ken Rockwell's comment 'It (24mm f/2.8 AFD is as sharp as the 24-70mm f2.8 AFS at 24mm' stops me from

going ahead as I don't want waste if it is the case.

  1. I would like to hear 1st hand in real world experience from you who use/used both lenses. I don't want to purchase a 24mm f/1.4 because of its price.
  2. Of course the softness at 100% viewing (24-70 at 24mm) is not noticeable when you view the image at print size.  I would like to ask printing experts amongst you from which print size this edge softness (at 24mm of 24-70mm) becomes an issue?  I don't print any images myself but previously I used a pro lab for all my prints.  
  3. Recently I started upload my images to FAA, and with the files from D800, it says it can print unto 72 inches (longest side) which must be at approx @100dpi.  I know the viewing distance increases as the print size gets bigger, but is it really good to offer this size (let's assume image IQ is good)?  The late Bruce Fraser once said 'In the case of photogs, the ideal viewing distance limited only by the length of the photog's nose.'  But I think to some extent it applies to general public too when they view prints.

Thanks

 

Sung

Hi ,

 

Check out this link to my blog,

 

http://garyksmithphotography.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/nikon-24mm-f28-afd-reassurance-test.html

 

 

 

There are quite a few posts on the 24 2.8 AFD.

 

Gary

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both MDM & Gary

 

I suppose there is a trade off between quality and convenience.  With 24-70, as soon as it passes above 26mm ish, I am very happy with the overall sharpness.

 

Am I being too fussy?  

 

I think I notice a slight difference between photos on your blog, Gary.  

Edited by SFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.