24mm 2.8D vs 28mm 2.8D

[cmulcahy]

I'm using a D300. My current lenses: Sigma 10-20, 35-70mm 2.8, and 50mm 1.4.

 

My current plan is to add a either the 24mm or the 28mm 2.8D. But I'm not sure

which. Neither lens got glowing reviews from photozone. I'm guessing I would

want to use this mostly in doors on groups of people and close ups.

Occasionally landscapes. Which lens do you think would fit my usage better?

From what I've seen the 28mm is about $100 less then the 24mm.

 

 

Are there any other suggestions then these two lenses? Keeping in mind I was

hoping to keep it around $300 or less. I've heard there are some nikon 20-35mm

2.8's out there but they must be hard to find, because I've only seen a couple

on Ebay and they went for over $500.

 

Part of the reason I want to keep the price around $300 or less is because I

want to add a 70-300 zoom VR this spring.

[roman_thorn]

If you don't mind manual focus, go with the 28 AIS, much sharper then either of the two you had listed. You can pick these up used for under 200 bucks. I own one and use it on my D300 all of the time.

[michael_darnton1]

Your situation is very similar to mine. I've got the 10-20 Sigma, a 50/1.8, and the 18-135 that came with the camera. I'm trying to figure a wide angle so that I can go light with the 50, and I'm mostly considering the 20/2.8, which would give me about, in 35mm terms, 30 and 75. That seems like a comfortable spread for me, since I've variously used 28/50 and 28/85 as my favorite pairs in the past, and pretty much hate 35mm as a lens.

 

So I guess the question is, what are you trying to accomplish with the extra lens?

[carl_becker2]

I use the 24mm f2.8 AF-D and the 28mm f2 AIS Nikkors. I like both of them. For indoors I would go for speed. You might be able to find a used Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 zoom. Check with KEH about used lenses (20-35mm). Not real cheap but you get what you pay for and can return if not happy. You might want to consider quality over quantity and just get one good lens this year.

[jim_interlicchio1]

I would have to second what Michael said - "what are you trying to accomplish with the extra

lens?"

FWIW when I go light (weight-wise) I use a 20mm AF-D and have gotten very good results

on a D200 and a D70.<div></div>

[cmulcahy]

I want something wider then 35mm (on DX) but fast. I've already got the Sigma 10-20mm and a 35-70mm 2.8. So I'd like something in between that I can use mostly for people pics. I've found that 35mm just isn't wide enough sometimes but 20mm is too wide. Thus my interest in a 24mm or 28mm.

[g._v.]

I think that the 24mm 2.8 is the Sweet Spot among wide-angle prime lenses. If I could

only have one wide-angle it would be the 24 2.8. I have used it and the 20mm

extensively and the 24mm is just more usable in a wide variety of situations. The 28mm

isn't wide enough to add that "wide-angle perspective." The 20mm has more wide-angle

distortion than the 24mm. The 24mm is relatively small, light, fast and sharp as heck...

not to mention a great value.

 

I don't give a Rat's Ass what Photozone says... reviews tend to focus on technical minutiae

that can have relatively little bearing in Real World Photography. The 24mm 2.8 has been

used for years to make incredible people and landscape images; if you have the requisite

photographic skills then you can do the same with it.

[larrybc]

G. V. wrote:

<br>

<br>> I don't give a Rat's Ass what Photozone says... reviews tend to focus on

<br>> technical minutiae that can have relatively little bearing

<br>> in Real World Photography. The 24mm 2.8 has been used for

<br>> years to make incredible people and landscape images; if you

<br>> have the requisite photographic skills then you can do the

<br>> same with it.

<br>

<br>I'd have to agree with you, to some extent. Last night, I did some test shots btwn the four lenses I have that include the 24mm range: Nikkor 24/2.8, Sigma 18-50/2.8, Nikkor 18-200VR, Nikkor 17-55/2.8. The Sigma proved to be sharper in the center and edges when compared to the 24/2.8 and shot at f/2.8. Surprised me quite a bit. The test also showed that the Sigma has significant CA, too.

<br>

<br>But here's the thing, I enjoyed shooting with both of these lenses. Before I ever compared them, I never noticed any sharpness differences in my photos (lots of available light people photos) *and* I never shot stuff that made the CA on the Sigma noticeable...at least not on prints.

<br>

<br>So while comparisons are interesting, you really need to think about whether or not those differences are going to be noticeable in your particular style of photography and process. Even after this test, I will continue to cherish my little 24/2.8. I love its size and the results I've gotten with it. I'm selling the Sigma mainly because I don't think I've gotten consistently accurate AF with it when shot at f/2.8.

<br>

<br>larsbc

[andrew_dodson]

24mm hands down..... it's tack sharp... its perfect for a great walk around lens

[fredrik_sandstrom]

> The 28mm isn't wide enough to add that "wide-angle perspective." The 20mm has more wide-angle distortion than the 24mm.

 

You're talking about film (or FX), but Chad said he's using a D300. 28mm is not wide on a DX sensor; it's normal. 24mm is moderately wide. 20mm is wide but not _very_ wide. (Kit zooms are usually 18mm at the wide end.)

 

When it comes to film, I agree with you. I love the 24mm focal length. On DX, you'd need a 16mm lens for the equivalent field of view.

[joseph_smith3]

I have the Nikon 24mm but rarely use it. I use instead the 20mm f 2.8. Joe Smith

[jose_angel]

There is no a perfect prime choice IMHO for a DX camera. After looking for a one-prime-for-all and some testing, I settled on the 24 AFD.

 

The only drawback is that this lens is highly proned to flare and gosts. You must use permanently a hood attached, at the cost of increase the lens size. I advice you to use either of this hoods:

 

HN-3 if you want to use any filter, all metal made for 35mm lenses.

 

HR-1 if you doesn`t want to use filters, it`s made on rubber, it`s bigger, made for the 50/1.4AiS. It`s near but doesn`t cause vignetting at all. I prefer this one.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I find that 28mm is a wide as you can go on an slr camera and not distort facial features. For landscapes and interiors 24mm is reasonably wide and most flash units can just cover this angle of view with light. The problem is that you may see a little more barrel distortion and CA the wider you go.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Since you cover the wide end well I would expect since you are using a DX sensor camera that the 24mm would be right in the middle of the gap in your present line-up.

 

Sigma made a FF 24mm f1.8 that will work well with the DX sweet spot. Its heavy because of the fast f-stop but it would make a good available light lens match for the D300 which can give you great iso 1600 low noise shots. Having an extra f-stop on the lens faster you will get the same results with iso 1600 and f1.8 as iso 3200 and f2.8.

Even better you can get into some real low light subjects hand held with the faster lens.

[sjmurray]

I have the manual versions of both the 24 and 28 f2.8 lenses. On a APS size DSLR (D80) I prefer the 24mm for random snaps of people in groups. Its sharp enough at f2.8 and the extra wideness is useful.

[g._v.]

I'm sorry that I missed the part about the lens being used on a DX Nikon... I was thinking

about film Nikons (I like to use the 24mm with my FT2 Nikkormat and FM2).

 

Larry, if you had not done those side-by-side comparisons and indulged in a little "pixel-

peeping" you would have never noticed a difference, which was my point... In many (if not

most...) real-world situations the slight differences between lenses really don't make a

discernable difference in the final image.

 

Of course, when pushing lenses to their limits the differences may be more pronounced,

and that is when it is important to find out if a particular lens is going to cut it if you tend

to do that kind of shooting on a regular basis. Since the top-performing lenses also tend

to be the most expensive, it is up to the individual photographer to decide how important

seemingly minute differences in image quality are going to be in the long-run.

 

The plethora of review Web sites and user forums on the Internet have seemingly spawned

a generation of photographers that are obsessed with equipment technical details that will

likely have little or no real effect on their photography (if they ever get away from their

computers and actually spend some time making photographs!)

 

Nowadays it is easy and cost-free to enlarge an image on a computer monitor to the

functional equivalent of a 3 by 5 foot image and then scan it for anomalies. Is there any

lens that can stand up to that kind of examination in every shooting situation? Is there any

point to doing this? How many photographers are producing over-sized enlargements

that are meant to be viewed from six inches away?

 

A lot of great images have been created with cameras and lenses that would not stand up

to the kind of nit-picking that many people do these days. In the end it really does come

down to the photographer and not the gear that they use...

 

As far as the 24mm 2.8 goes, I always use a metal lens shade with it. I use lens shades on

all my lenses... for both protection and flare-reduction. I have not noticed that it has a

tendency to flare or ghost. In fact, Galen Rowell praised the 24mm 2.8 for its usefulness

when creating the "sun-stars" he was so fond of in his work. Stopping-down the 24mm

and framing a subject with a point-light source like the sun produces a neat effect with

little or no flare.

[jose_angel]

"... In many (if not most...) real-world situations the slight differences between lenses really don't make a discernable difference in the final image..." I must agree with G.V., but here that`s not my experience.

 

All my 24/2.8 lenses have big flare and ghost issues. I currently use a Ai and AFD versions. My Ai is probably 25 years old, has dust and old coatings. The AFD is sharper, probably with better coatings. Both have the same design, thought. Both must be used with care to avoid this issues. I don`t want to say this are bad lenses. They are on my favourite`s list.

 

No more words. Check it by yourself:<div></div>

[jose_angel]

Here, the shot has been taken into a shadow, no hood, same lens, same place, f8.<div></div>

[jose_angel]

Another one, same lens, same setting. That`s a failed shot, I pressed the trigger unintentionally. Funny, good as a flare&ghost sample.<div></div>

[jose_angel]

But correctly used, both lenses can take very good images. Here is a 24/2.8 Ai sample,

[jose_angel]

Althought I find both lenses with easy to flare issues, of course you can avoid them with the same easy. I`m sorry I don`t have AFD flare&ghost samples, here it is a sharp AFD sample;

[jose_angel]

I`m also a currently owner of a 28/2.8 Ais, but on a DX camera I don`t find it as interesting... lately I have used it for macro fun. Never used the 28AFD.

[g._v.]

I must be extra careful when it comes to shooting a wide-angle with the sun just outside the

frame... I find myself using my hand quite a bit to get rid of flare and ghosting when I see it

in the viewfinder. The lens shade is fine up to a point...

[cmulcahy]

Well I just bought a used 28mm 2.8D for $70. I was actually leaning towards getting the 24mm but I couldn't pass up the price. I'll let you know how I like it when it shows up.