I keep reading that the Nikon 24mm / 2.8 is "not so good" on a digital camera. The Nikon 20mm, on the other hand, gets a lot of praise although the 24mm is considered to be the sharper lens and the effective focal length very similar (35mm vs. 30mm). Any experiences you could share? Thanks, my first post, btw
I've not found any problems with my AF 24mm f/2.8D Nikkor on a digital body (D70 and D200). I don't have the 20mm now, but I recall several posts in this forum which suggest that it (the 20mm) performs less well on digital than it does on film.
The 24mm f/2.8D performs fine on my D70s. I've found it a good low light lens for group shots (I took one of about 73 people back in January, results were good though I should have stopped down for greater DOF).
The corners are still as sharp as when you use it on film cameras and the 24mm is one mighty fine lens.
Some weeks ago I made a test of the 24/2.8D on my D70 with the following results:
- F/2.8: Very sharp in the center but gradually softens towards the corners. Some light falloff is evident, less then what I see on film of course. (I would not use it wide open as long as I could manage the slower shutter speed.)
- F/4: Very sharp everywhere but the extreme corners. The light falloff is negligible.
- F/5.6: Very sharp all over the DX frame. No light falloff.
The CA is not an issue on the D70. It might be visible on D2X/D200.
In comparison, the 18-70 DX has similar performance in a wide aperture range to the 24 prime at about F4. You need to stop down the kit lens to F11 to get really sharp far corners at 24mm.
The 24mm has low linear distortion but the 18-70 isn't that bad at this focal length either.
To be honest, I never use the 24mm prime on my D70. Neither the smaller size nor the slightly better optimal performance can justify choosing it over the 18-70 and losing the zooming capability.