Wide-angle (24mm, 28mm) options for Nikon AF

Hello all,

 

I'm currently researching my options in the way of an AF wide-angle

prime for my F90. I've discovered that I'm a big fan of the wide-angle

perspective and would like something light, fast and snappy in 24 or

28mm to complement my 50mm f/1.8 (non-D) lens. These two, together

with the 100mm f/2.8 Series E I got recently would allow me to ditch

the heavy, slow consumer zooms.

 

Of the 24mm and 28mm AF options out there -- both in Nikon and Sigma,

whose lenses get good reviews -- and trying to keep the cost under

control -- what would people recommend? I know that the 28mm f/2.8

non-D has a bad reputation but I'm not sure about the 24's or if they

are even available in non-D.

 

In addition, what do people think of the idea of 24, 50 and 100 as a

"kit" of prime lenses? Is the gap between 24 and 50 too large?

 

Thanks!

"These two, together

with the 100mm f/2.8 Series E I got recently would allow me to ditch

the heavy, slow consumer zooms."

 

Jordan, be aware that the series E is considered a comsumer lens,but I recognize that isn't slow, neither probably heavy since its construction is not compared to the regulars AI and AI-S, metal ones, the "E" series has quite some plastic on it.

Go wide and go big. 24mm would be my choice and anything over 100mm. I find myself using between 135mm and 150mm when I use my 80-200mm AF.

do you need AF? the 28/2.8 AIs (not any other 28/2.8) is said to be one of the best wide angle nikkors. if you go MF (and used), you could probably get a 24 and a 35 for the price of a new 24 or 28. check bjorn rorslett's site and ken rockwell's site for reviews of the wide angles.

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

 

if you dont already have them.

24-50 seems too wide a gap, IMHO... 28-50 sounds better and gives you an excuse to later get a 20mm, along with your 105mm.

 

if you didn't already have the 50mm, I would have recommended a kit of: 24-35-85-135.

I have the Nikon AF 28 2.8 D and the Nikon AF 24 2.8 and owned the Sigma AF 24 2.8 for a time. I bought the 28 used with another lens and got a good deal. I didn't really set out to buy it because I had almost never used the 28 end of the zooms I had. Lo and behold, I liked the 28 a great deal - it is sharp and produces great colors and isn't very distorted, although you can tilt it to get some skewed perspectives. The Sigma was very sharp but very, very distored - buildings looked curved. It also focsused very noisily. I replaced it with the Nikon a few weeks ago and haven't had any film developed yet, but the image int eh viewfinder doesn't look at all distorted.

Jordan, I know you are looking for primes but if I were you I would VERY seriously consider getting a wide zoom. I recently purchased a Tokina 20-35/2.8 AF and this is a really sweet lens! It's relatively small (compared to the Nikkor 20-35/2.8), fast and feels fantastic. I love the way you switch from AF to MF just by pulling down on the focus collar. A great lens! I picked up mine used here in Japan for about $250.

 

Basically I never take this lens off my N90 -- and before I bought this lens, I had an all metal Sigma 21-35/3.5-4 virtually welded to the body for the previous 10 years. Wide zooms are hugely versitile and the quality is nearly indistinguishable from primes nowadays.

 

These wide zooms (and particularly the constant aperture ones) are ideal for balance ambient fill situations. I used an N90, Sigma 21-35 AF, and SB-25 combo in TTL mode to get a perfectly exposed shot from inside the cockpit of a Soviet-era helicopter as it flew over a bright blue lake of sulfuric acid in the caldera of a volcano in Kamchatka. The flash provided perfectly balanced light for the wide-angle (20mm) shot of the interior of the cockpit (including the pilot) while the N90's TTL-matrix mettering took care of daylight outside. I would have been hard-pressed to get this shot manually -- and the flexibility of the the zoom in such cramped quarters definitely saved the day.

 

For years and years I dreamed about getting the Nikkor 20-35/2.8, particularly after an opportunity to speak with Jim Stanfield about this lens' performance while he was on assignment in Oman, but it just never seemed to be worth the money since I was getting such excellent performance out of my much cheaper Sigma.

 

Unfortunately, now with the advent of digital and the smaller sensor I face the prospect of having my favorite lens converted into a rather useless 30-50 zoom. I can hardly wait for Nikon's newly announced DX wide zoom -- for the DSLR in my future!

Actually, I use the Nikkor 24-50 AF zoom. I like the images that it creates. Maybe I am just lucky, but my sample is more than acceptably sharp, and very convenient to carry.

I did get the Nikon 20-35/2.8D (when it was being cleared out to make room for the 17-35/2.8D ED AF-S). No regrets.

 

That having been said, it does have a little more distortion and a lot more flare than the prime lenses do.

 

I think your plan to get primes is a good one. 24 to 50 is large, but you could always get a 35 to fill it later, if you want.

 

The AF 28/2.8D is an amazing and highly underrated lens. The AF 24/2.8 (D or non-D) is just as good or better. Buy both used, if you must. :)

Hi everyone, thanks for your responses.

 

I plan on renting the 24mm f/2.8 for a weekend from Calumet to "try it on for size" and see how I feel about the perspective. I am an amateur and on a pretty tight budget, which motivated my purchase of the 50mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.8E, both for a song. That I will be buying the lens used goes without saying. I have a 70-300mm cheap-o zoom lens (think camera-store-chain house brand) that I find I almost never use due to the weight and the fact that I'm not very interested in the long end of its range.

 

I would like to stay with primes, both to keep the weight and cost down, and because (maybe I'm crazy in this regard) I feel that when I'm using a prime lens I'm more careful about composition than when I have a zoom on the camera. MF is a possibility, but I'm also thinking toward compatibility with any DSLR that might be in my future. :)

One more argument in favor of primes for wide angle is that they focus MUCH closer thus allowing compositions that are simple impossible with the zoom. For example with the 20/2.8 I owned (until just recently) I could get close enough to get a "macro" shot of some object in a market yet still get the whole market in the background. I'm beginning to miss this a bit with my zoom.

I like the 24mm perspective much more than the 28mm one.

I don't feel too much of a gap between 24 and 50 or even 55mm. Truth be told, I have a 35/1.4 that I keep in my "gear support" bag with all kinds of filters and 2 zooms as well sync cords, tripod plates- spares and such. But my shooting bag has 24, 50, 55, 85, and 180. If I felt the "gap" I would remove the 50 for the 35, but the 50 AF's and it's a pleasing lens to use.

 

However, on a recent "pack light" trip to the alaskan bush, I brought only the 35/1.4 and a FM2. Worked great under all conditions- coincidentally, by the time you crop a neg to 8X10, 35 is closer to "normal" than a 50 in a FF format.

Oh yeah, the 24 is stellar. not much desire for any other wide, with the exception of the 17-35. I'd still carry the 24 for close-up exaggeration though. Pulls this off VERY nicely.

For anyone who ends up finding this thread, I eventually ended up finding an inexpensive used 24mm f/2.8 AI on the big auction site. I love it and between it, my 50mm f/1.8 and my 100mm f/2.8E I've got a perfect kit of light, inexpensive lenses.