Just bought another AI lens - 24 mm f 2,8

[lahuasteca]

I'm going backwards in time - just bought a BGN 24 mm f 2.8 AI lens from KEH for $100.00 when I should

have been saving for something in DX format. I do a lot of wide angle and prefer the more detailed

hyperfocal markings of the AI lenses to the 24 AFD which I already have. I hope the BGN lens turns out to

be OK. Just couldn't resist it. I'm curious to see if there will be a difference in image quality between the

AI and AFD lenses. Both lenses are/will be used on fillm Nikons for true wide angle. For normal to tele I'm

starting to use the D70s.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>I'm curious to see if there will be a difference in

image quality between the AI and AFD lenses. --Gene Paull<br>

</em><br>

Id like to hope there is. The 28/2.8 is a poor performer in

terms of flare & ghost. I own a 24/2.8 AI and prefer the AI

for its longer distance and more numerous DOF markings as

you do. The thing you may notice is the newer Super Integrated

Coatings may help the 24/2.8D AF (if you have an AF-D) with

difficult lighting. The only comparison I can make is between two

28/2.0 AIS Nikkors and they are among the best in flare &

ghost control. Im not sure there is a practical difference

in these to lenses.<br>

<br>

Im not dumping on the 24/2.8 as its a very useful

lens the third Nikkor Ive bought when starting a new

system, twice. Ive started two Nikon systems one single

coated and one multi-coated. Both times I bought a 55/3.5 Micro

followed by a 105/2.5 and then a 24/2.8.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[bin ming]

I happily own a 24mm f2.8 AF (but not D) for years. On film 24mm is almost exactly where I want each time I think "wide" and I rarely need to go wider. I always shoot at f5.6 - f11 and results are excellent. However on digital I think this lens has serious CA problem. I guess images are at least so-so looking, until a quick comparison to my 35mm f2 AI. I have no idea why the 24mm fares so poorly in the digital world, and I'm heartbroken I have no real wide lenses in DX format.

 

Now I have the 18-200mm superzoom. At 24mm the zoom is head and shoulders above the prime.

[janvanlaethem]

Gene,

 

I bought a 24mm f/2.8 AIS several years ago. I was looking at the f/2.0 version, but having heard mixed reports about this particular lens, I decided I'd rather go for the f/2.8.

 

I use this lens mainly for landscapes, travel and interior shots, although for architecture you need to take special care with converging lines. To minimize this, I try to back up as much as possible and try to keep the camera level on a tripod, unless of course you want to exagerate the converging effects, when you should do exactly the opposite.

 

I started out with the Olympus OM system and my first lens was a 24mm. When I switched to Nikon, my second lens was a 24mm (the first lens came with the camera body - 50mm f/1.8 - do you remember those days when cameras were sold with a fixed standard lens?). I have become so familiar with the angle of view of a 24mm that it is now almost second nature using it, that is, I set up my tripod before getting the camera out and rarely need to move my tripod to get the view I want.

 

My initial AF lens got badly scratched during a trip. I was carrying it with front and rear lens caps on the lens, but somehow the front cap came loose and scratched the front element. I can still use it in normal conditions, but not for shooting into the light, I get very ugly streaks all over my pictures. So I got the AIS version, which by the way is much nicer to focus than the early AF lenses with their slim focusing rings.

 

I can absolutely recommend this lens. But I advise you to leave a UV filter attached at all times to protect the front element. The only times I take the filter off are for into-the-light pictures, although I've never had problems with ghosting with the filter attached. I also recommend to get the dedicated lens hood.

 

See http://www.photo.net/photos/janvanlaethem

 

all pictures in "black and white infrared", "movement" and some in "landscape colour" were shot on the 24mm AF or AIS.

 

Dave,

 

Just a thought. Why did you start two lines of Nikkor lenses? I'd rather buy different focal lenghts, or different speeds of the same lens, like 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.2. Just curious.

 

regards

 

Jan

[walterh]

"I'm curious to see if there will be a difference in image quality between the AI and AFD lenses. "

 

Please do report your findings. My personal experience is that my current sample of the 24mmF2.8 AIS lens is better in resolution and contrast than my AFD sample was (now sold). "Better" = visibly better on my large laptop screen - there was no high quality screen necessary to see the difference.

 

Yes - sample variation exists and perhaps I own an exceptional good AIS sample and/or a poor AFD sample. If price has anything to do with quality control then sample variation would be more pronounced with the AFD lens. The list price was much lower than the list price of the late AIS models. Now that I got a D200 body in addition to my D70 I smile a lot when using the 24mm AIS version.

[tri-x1]

Haven't done any real tests but I believe my 24mm f2.8 ai Nikkor is better than the 24mm af I had.

 

If I could only have one lens for my camera (film) it would be a 24mm. It has been my davorite lens for 35 years.

[Rich B NYC]

Just as a casual observation, I find that my 24mm f2.8 AI is much less flare-prone than the 24 f2.8 AFD that I sold. No comparison in build qulity or "feel". The AI is simply in another class entirely.

 

My AI version was also bought from KEH but in EX condition for about $160. I doubt that you'll be disappointed with the BGN grading. I've bought BGN from KEH a few times and never regretted it.

 

Rich

[cdnguyen]

I'm going backward too ! I just picked up an old Nikon F2s and currently have the following lenses in my possesion al AIs 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.0, 55mm f3.5 micro and 105mm f2.5. I could never get warmed up with the AF series. used to own the 24mm f2 and didn't it was exceptional.

[therion256]

I own both the 24 AF-D and the 20AF (non-D I got in EX+ condition from KEH) and my favorite on the D200 is the 20 right now (displaced the 24 from fave status.) I'm noticing less CA on images produced from the 20 than those from the 24.

 

Bjorn Rorslett's reviews of Nikkor lenses (at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html) inspired me to get a 20mm and I agree with his observations on the 2 lenses.

 

The AI versions of these lenses are the same optical designs, but the build quality of the AI's are legendary and superior to the current AF models.

 

You'll probably be happy with what you get from KEH.com.

[klix]

I have a fair number of AI/AIS lenses, which at one time included the 24/2.8 AIS. However, I recently sold the lens.

 

Nothing against the lens itself (it's sharp and contrasty), but for me, a focal length of 24mm just did not suit my style. I use my 20mm/3.5 and 28/2.8 quite a bit, but more often than not, left the 24mm at home. I know this is a personal thing, but the angle of view from a 24mm just seems like a compromise to me.

 

KL

[bennybee]

"I'm going backwards in time"

Hell, I have not even gone forwards : I skipped the AF era entirely and I don't own a DSLR yet. I'm still having fun with my FM, F2 and F3HP.

Well O.K., I admit that I do have a digital P&S. But I swear it's not a recent one!