Hello all, I am in the process of purchasing a go to prime lens. With the type of photography I do (mainly landscape), the decision has come down to a 24 mm focal length to go along with my D600. I've rented the 14-24 and it is simply too bulky.
The obvious prime choice seemed to be the NIkon 24mm, 2.8 as it is light and tiny for hiking and has decent reviews and great value. Then I came across the 1.4.... From all accounts this is a spectacular lens. My main hesitation is physical size not to mention the price. If the lens is really that good, I could sacrifice on both.
Now that it has been out for a while, I would like some feedback on this lens. Also, is there another 24 mm (auto or manual focus) I should consider as an alternative?
In advance, I thank you for your time and attention.
I owned it for a while. The quality is stellar, even wide open. It is not small. I loved playing with it at night but in daytime — well, I have the 14-24 and 24-70. So it wasn't getting enough use, and away it went.
In your case, the 24 f/1.4 is better than your 16-35 and perhaps more useful if you shoot much in dim light or at night.
Jon Kandel A New York City Nikonian and Team Member Please visit my website and critique the images!
I have three lenses to use at 24 mm, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss 25/2. I preferentially use the Zeiss which is very sharp wide open, has excellent color and micro contrast and exhibits no field curvature. If your main interest is landscape, you can save a few $$ and get the Zeiss 25/2.8. Just for the record, the Zeiss 21/2.8 is generally considered the best "landscape" lens available.
Thu 13-Dec-12 12:44 AM | edited Thu 13-Dec-12 12:54 AM by Leonard62
For a small, light and inexpensive wa lens, the AF 24mm f2.8 is a good choice. I like the 24mm focal length. I find it's better than the AF and AIS 28mm f2.8 lenses and the 20mm's.
Since getting the 24mm f1.4, it's my landscape lens maybe 90% of the time. I hardly use my 14-24mm. It's clearly superior to Nikon's AF 20mm, 24mm, 28mm f2.8 lenses for sharpness from the center all the way out to the corners. I can use it on my D3X at ISO 200 and take a small 100% crop from anywhere in the frame and it doesn't look like a crop at all.
Here's a crop from a 100% enlargement. f11, ISO 400 and taken directly from the raw file from my D3X. Except for the crop no pp.
Also look into the AFS 28mm f1.8. I like that lens too.
Thu 13-Dec-12 04:58 AM | edited Thu 13-Dec-12 05:36 AM by jxv777
I like the 24mm f1.4G. Please see my gallery for photos. I purchased it used for $1400 and it is well worth it to me. With the D700 I can take photos in low light without flash. I use it for people, landscapes or action shots.
I shoot mostly landscapes and have had a variety of wide primes over the years. I currently have the 24 mm f/1.4, use it on my D800E, and really like it. Before the D800E I used it on the D3s and the D700.
I find it works well with low light although I use it with a variety of lighting situations. I am attaching one image I took at the recent ANPAT using a tripod and ISO 3200 around 6:30 in the morning at f/4 and 1.0 sec. The image was cropped to bring out the intensity of the stars.
Thank you all for your responses. I ended up with the 24/ 2.8 mainly because of the small size. So far appears to be a good lens. Autofocus not the best but I mainly preset manual focus. Will let you know if I keep it.