nikon 24f2.8 vs 35f2

[fwellers]

Can anyone who has experience with both of these lenses tell me if the 24 has as good of IQ as the 35 ?
I currently have the 35 and am satisfied with it. But I would like to get the 24 for a wider FOV. However I don't want to sacrifice any image quality. I know I am sacrificing an fstop but I can deal with that.

Thanks.
floyd

 

[dhilberg]

I've never shot with either, but the Photozone review of the 24mm doesn't give it very high marks.

Nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8D - Review / Test Report

Here's the 35mm review:

Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Review / Test Report

 

[kundalini]

I didn't like the overall reviews I read on the 24, so I went with the 20mm f/2.8. I'm very happy with it.

 

[fwellers]

Yea the 20 would be nice. It would fit right in with my setup. I have the 35 and the 50. So going down another 15mm would give me the 20.
It's pretty expensive for me right now though. Plus I don't know if it will be too wide for an every day lense. I tend to go around with just the 35. Sometimes I go take the 50, but rarely do I take an extra lense. I like to travel light.

 

[kundalini]

What do you shoot with... DX or FX? I could give you an example. I'm going to a photo workshop tonight.

Don't forget the used market.

 

[fwellers]

I appreciate that. I have a D90.
Used. What are the best places. I snoop around on the buy-sell market here, and on Fred Miranda's site. Where else is good ? I am not too keen on buying used unless it's from a trusted community and user in that community, because compared to buying new, where you can at least try it out and do some pixel peeping before buying it, it seems like a big chance.

Thanks !

 

[kundalini]

I trust B&H, Adorama, KEH for on-line. There are a few forums that I visit that I would/might buy from after researching that the member is long term and isn't an idiot in his photos/responses. Dgrin and Nikongear come to mind.

Locally, check craigslist and local camera shops, but only if you can see and fire off a few frames. I read a pretty good article recently on what to watch for when buying used lenses. I'll see if I can find it again and post here.

 

[Derrel]

Well, if you want to go wider in an affordable prime lens, the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D is currently the prime lens Nikon has to offer. It's a pretty good lens, the 24mm, but it has a couple of quirks. One is that it has more focus shift than you might expect, so when you stop it down in really,really critical situations you want to make sure the focus is good. At first I was thinking the problem was me, but then I started checking into it, and the design is known for having some focus shift as the lens is stopped down. It is also not a "great 24mm lens".

The thing is this--the "old" Nikon 24mm f/2.8 Ai-S was, truly, a "great" 24mm lens, but the cost of producing it was very high,and it still sells at a high price used, and by the time AF hit, Nikon waited about six years before making an autofocus 24mm...this lens came out in 1993 and it is not/was not a "full bore" design like the 24 Ai-S was, which was a refinement of over two decades' worth of 24mm lens designs and the absolute crowing jewel of their Close Range Correction triumph.

Right now, the 24/2.8 AF-D is a seventeen year old lens model, unchanged since its introduction. It is light, small, 9 elements in 9 groups, and has the CRC floating element design that gives better flatness of field at close range, and while it's a good lens, I reach for my 17-35, or my 24 Ai-S if I need a 24mm lens for slow,static work. I personally like the 24mm a tad bit better than the 35/2 AF-D on a crop-bodied Nikon, but only because I like the wider angle of view. The 35 focuses a bit more decisively than the 24mm, due to longer FL and wider aperture. I don't think you'd find the 24 to be a "dog" by any means, but it does show some CA and it's a little bit less-sharp than the 35 AF-D. Not by a lot, just a little bit.

I cannot focus the 24mm Ai-S in low light accurately enough, so I bought the 24/2.8 AF-D in the early 2000's. Its best asset is small size and affordability, but I actually kind of replaced it with the 20/2.8 AF-D which I think is a better performer in most respects. Also--Nikon wants you to buy $1700 zoom lenses to get these focal lengths!

 

[fwellers]

Thanks Kundalini,
And thanks expecially Derrel for all that backround and education !!

I may try something else I haven't tried before. For around $40.00 to include shipping both ways and damage insurance I can rent lenses online for a week. That seems like a fair way to access a lens.

I suppose if I wait, I shouldn't hold out too much hope for something like a newer modern small wide prime from Nikon ??
I guess they may make a DX wide that's decent, but all of their fast primes now seem to be aimed at the pro and are sort of expensive and BIG.

Thanks ,
floyd

 

[potownrob]

Have you considered the 28mm/2.8? Not too much difference from the 35mm FOV wise and it doesn't have as wide an aperture, but I've heard many people say they like the 28mm focal length better than 35mm.

Edit: I had mentioned this not only due to the reviews of 28mm lenses vs. 24mm lenses (I have no personal experience with either in fixed length lens form but have read about them) but also because the price is lower for the 28mm lens. It seems, upon checking the prices again, that the difference in price between the 28/2.8 and 24/2.8 isn't as much as I thought...

 

[fwellers]

I'll check it out a little closer. I hadn't really considered it, just because it's so close to the 35. But it can't hurt. )

Thanks.

 

[wescobts]

I too have the 35mm F2 & 20mm F2.8, and both are fine pieces of glass. I am shooting on an old D-70, so really I am at 52.5 and 30 mm. I have become so comfortable at these ranges. I try to shoot everyday, and sometimes in poor weather and rough conditions. They are both holding up well, and producing some real nice work, I suggest getting both. What I usually carry with me is this, my 20mm, 35mm, and my 60mm macro, and went from street work to some indoor bar/pub shots to landscape. I never felt I was lacking a lens, and was not lugging and "big and heavy". Prime lenses rule