Nikon 24mm f1.8G vs 24mm f 2.8D Lenses

I really want the G lens, so I'll let that be known now. But honestly coming up with the 1Grand Canadian for it, is taking forever to get to save for.

 

So I was looking at cheaper options and saw the f2.8D lens. I'll mention I don't really care about shooting wide open, so losing a stop or so between these two doesn't bother me. These lenses will be used for wide angle portrait shots and landscapes.

 

The two cameras I have this lens will be used on are the D800 and the F100 film cameras. I know the D lens will work on both of those.

 

So my main question is- will I notice a noticeable improvement in lens quality if I just save for the 1.8 lens? I want to maximise the quality of images when using the D800. Im not sure how the older D lens will hold up on that camera.

 

Anyone ever compare these two lenses on a high megapixel camera? Can the D lens keep up with the newer version? Or is the 1.8 just that much better?

Edited July 1, 2019 by 25asa

I used the 24/2.8 (A, AI) on slide film for many years without any hesitation.

But on digital sensor (D200 D300 D800) is wasn't that great anymore.. :-(

Colour fringing/CA on D200, less so on D300 and D800, but still markedly bad corners (DX and FX sensors..)..

But admittedly: I find my 24-70/2.8 AFS not much better.

So, my advice, not based on a direct comparison, woudl be: save up for a more modern lens!

I know it's a bit left field and I'm not totally sure it works with an F100, but how about the Sigma 24-35mm f2 zoom?

 

I know it's a limited zoom range numerically but as it's a wide angle it makes a big difference to field of view.

 

It's also quite big and heavy it's but IQ is great even out to the edges.

 

If you can find one used, it's a real bargain.

I know it's a bit left field and I'm not totally sure it works with an F100, but how about the Sigma 24-35mm f2 zoom?

 

I know it's a limited zoom range numerically but as it's a wide angle it makes a big difference to field of view.

 

It's also quite big and heavy it's but IQ is great even out to the edges.

 

If you can find one used, it's a real bargain.

 

I understand that the OP is looking for a temaray solution wich commands a lower price than the 24mm f/1.8, this sigma demands a higher price than the 24mm mentioned.

 

If going for a used lens, then it might be better to look for a used 24mm f/1.8 i guess ?

Indeed, you're right!

 

New 24mm f1.8 Nikon ~ low as £490. I thought it would be much higher...:-)

I really want the G lens, so I'll let that be known now. But honestly coming up with the 1Grand Canadian for it, is taking forever to get to save for.

 

So I was looking at cheaper options and saw the f2.8D lens. I'll mention I don't really care about shooting wide open, so losing a stop or so between these two doesn't bother me. These lenses will be used for wide angle portrait shots and landscapes.

 

The two cameras I have this lens will be used on are the D800 and the F100 film cameras. I know the D lens will work on both of those.

 

Just to be clear: the 24mm f/1.8 AF-S G should work fine on an F100, as far as I'm aware. It's not E-aperture or AF-P, which are the technologies that need a newer body, and the F100 has a second dial and body-driven aperture priority, so it'll handle G lenses.

 

Optical quality aside, I'm not blown away by the needs of speed on wide angles - you have limited depth of field control anyway, and camera shake is less of an issue with shorter focal lengths. Why do you "really want the G lens"? I should point out that the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art seems to be roughly the same price, if you'd like another 2/3 of a stop, but I'm not sure it's wildly better. (The Samyang seems to be iffy, sadly.) There might be something similar that's a better option if you'd like to clarify whether you need exactly 24mm, how much speed you need, what distortion is acceptable, how big it can be, etc.

 

I can't claim much expertise - 24mm for me tends to come either at the long end of my 14-24 or the short end of my 24-70 Tamron. (I've looked through the Samyang 24mm tilt-shift, but wasn't impressed.) Good luck!

(The Samyang seems to be iffy, sadly.)

- I reluctantly have to agree.

My first sample of Samyang's 24mm f/1.4 had a quite badly tilted image plane and was returned. The replacement is much, much better, but there's a small area of the frame, about 2/3rds out from centre, with lower image quality. I can live with it, since the overall image quality is far better than my old Ai-s 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor, and it's a bit smaller than the 14-24 Zoom Nikkor; not to mention a fraction of the price and two stops brighter. Then again it's MF only and quite big and heavy for a 24mm lens.

 

I had an old Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 'mini-wide' that delivered about the same IQ as the Ai-s Nikkor - mediocre in other words.

 

In short, my experience with the 24mm focal length hasn't been great, and it's not my favourite focal length anyway. Maybe that would change if there was a decent, fast AF version that didn't weigh a ton and cost a small fortune.

 

As it is, Sigma seem to be the only game in town apart from Nikon themselves.

 

I should also add that I have the 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 Samyang lenses, and their 135mm f/2; all of which are optically excellent. The 24mm is my only (slight) disappointment - and maybe I've just been unlucky with that.

I should point out that the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art seems to be roughly the same price, if you'd like another 2/3 of a stop, but I'm not sure it's wildly better.

I owned the Sigma 24/1.4 Art but in most scenarios I actually used it, the 24-35/2 would have been a better choice. Optically it seems to do no better than the Nikon 24/1.8 - but its a lot bigger and heavier. From what I've seen, the AF-S 24/1.8 betters the old 24/2.8 AF in every way. I have 24mm covered with several zooms and don't have a need for a separate prime lens - especially since 24mm doesn't appear to be a focal length I particularly favor.

mm If you can live with F/4.0 until you reach your dream of the Nikkor 24mm f/1.8 , i would like to throw another idea in the mix..:)

 

It is the Tokina AT-x 17-35mm F/4.0 PRO for Nikon FX , currently $419 at adorama ..

( Tokina 17mm-35mm F/4 AT-X Pro FX Lens f/Nikon DSLR's #ATX175PROFXN )

 

But if you can find a used one , it sometimes apears at fleabay at less than half of this..

 

Here is a review :

 

Tokina AT-X 17-35mm f/4 Review

The 24 f1.8G is a nice lens. The corner sharpness is good. I once had the 24 2.8D but got rid of it-don't remember why.

The Sigma 24-35 f2 is a great lens, but a brick. I keep trying to remind myself it weighs no more than a 24, 28, and 35mm prime and is as good. Still a brick.

The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 AFS has it flaws but is a very good lens. I was reminded on a recent rainy trip that not having to change lenses can be a blessing.

I'm trying to be a prime boy, but zooms have a place...….

it weighs no more than a 24, 28, and 35mm prime and is as good. Still a brick

Some of my best friends are bricks!

 

No, no, that's not right...Hummm.

 

I'm still hoping they'll build a DX 30-60mm 1.8 to go between the other 2 Sigma fast DX zooms, the 18-35mm and the 50-100mm 1.8s.

I'm not sure how much money is in the DX dSLR lens market at the moment. There are rumours of Nikon not bothering to develop some DX body lines further, and Nikon themselves have never exactly pushed vast resources into DX lenses (other than kit zooms); I've always assumed that the attachment rate is relatively limited, compared with full-frame. Not that Canon have been rushing into the M series, and Sony have been paying more attention to full-frame than the smaller bodies recently; it's mostly Fuji who have seemed all-in on crop-body lenses. I imagine Sigma make a lot more money from bigger glass, too, and they may find themselves distracted with the embiggening full-frame mirrorless market.

 

So I'm not holding my breath for an f/1.8 zoom in the 35-50mm range. Although an FX f/2 35-70mm might kill two birds with one stone.

Nikon’s 24mm/f2.8 uses the same optical formula since the AI version from 1977. I bought one back then (1998). 20 years ago I switched to the AF-D. I think it was ok on the 12MP D700. I would use it on the demanding modern DSLRs.

I would use it on the demanding modern DSLRs.

You mean wouldn't? :D

I think he meant would. 24-70mm f/2.8G @24mm is not much worse or much better than 24mm f/2.8D. The prime has slightly wider image when focused to 3 metres.

Now, this is from far left field...

 

I had the 24/2.8D and sold it. It did not look good near open on 36MP(or a little less) DSLR.

 

But, I like the older 24/2.8 N C manual lens a good bit. It is a little difficult to get perfect focus wide open on DSLRs, but not too difficult on the Z6. The old early formula 24/2.8 should not be better than the AF-D, but I think it is.

 

I think I have used a later 2.8 AI or AIS, thought it was similar to the AFD.

Edited July 6, 2019 by robert_bouknight|1

 

<pedant>Fewer.</pedant> But also, appreciating this is a tangent, "or a little less"?

The 24mm 1.8 afs is sharper than the 24mm 2.8 afd (which I sold several years ago). As long as I can remember, the 2.8 afd suffered more from color fringing.

Having said that, the 1.8 is currently not my favorite lens (actually I hesitate to sell it again): the images look very harsh to me, somewhat unpleasant, a little 'overcorrected'.

If you don't mind the size and weight the Nikkor 20-35 f2.8D is a really nice lens and pretty affordable now. I use mine on the D750 quite a bit.

You mean wouldn't? :D

Exactly. Sorry about the typo.

I think the 24/2.8D can definitely work. I have a pre-D version from the early 1990s, the proper focus ring but no D chip, and while it was frankly disappointing on the early digital bodies it has been given a new lease of life by the D800. The main thing with this lens seems to be, the less low-pass filtration on the sensor, the better; the newer cameras have thinner low-pass filters, often without anti-aliasing at all; there's some outer field astigmatism on the 24/2.8 at all apertures (which I suspect disagrees with the older, thicker low-pass filters and may also cause issues with bokeh) and it is definitely not close to being telecentric in design (again, the thinner the low-pass filtration the better for dealing with this). As an F100/D800 lens, which is how I have used it, I really can't fault it for reportage at all, though for landscape and some interiors you want to evaluate whether corners, bokeh and light falloff are important to you below f5.6. This issue has been fixed with the f1.8 line. The 24/2.8 is also a very lightweight design with a floating element (i.e. not all elements move in unison; this is to boost performance at all focusing distances, not just either far away or close up), so complex and I suspect vulnerable to knocks, so test before you buy if you can.

But, I like the older 24/2.8 N C manual lens a good bit. It is a little difficult to get perfect focus wide open on DSLRs, but not too difficult on the Z6. The old early formula 24/2.8 should not be better than the AF-D, but I think it is.

 

Even the esteemed Bjorn Rorslett vaguely agrees on this point. The 24mm focal length is perhaps the only instance of Nikon performing an optical redesign during the K to AI transition that wasn't really intended to make a dramatic improvement: instead, they re-balanced the aberrations, which adds up to roughly the same performance but a somewhat different "look". Some photographers prefer the NC, K and early AI formula, others prefer the late AI, AIS, and AF-D formula. The differences are subtle, most apparent in flare control. After trying both, I kept the old NC and bought an AI conversion ring for it. A bit later I picked up an early KAI with the same formula.

 

While the AF-D is supposedly identical to the AIS, some photographers suspect it may be very slightly inferior, along the lines of the 20/2.8 AF-D also being a hair "off" compared to its corresponding AIS. Nikon had some issues adapting the floating element wides to screwdrive AF, which may have led to a few small modifications. The blatantly obvious outlier was the 28/2.8, all but perfected in AIS form, but dumbed down to mediocre in AF-D by eliminating the floating element.