Nikon 24mm f/2.8AF on DSLR - mine doesn't look so good...

[brooks_lester]

On my D700 it just doesn't look sharp. I don't think it's a focus issue; no area of the image seems to be sharper than any other, DOF field

considerations aside. I'm wondering if it's just a bad copy. I love 24mm on 35mm bodies, so I guess I'll buy another 24mm f/2.8AF and get rid

of my current one. I'll probably throw it in the trash so someone else doesn't get stuck with it...

[ronald_moravec1]

Before you toss it realize digital is a great leveler. The Bayer pattern limits sharpness. The AA filter in front of the sensor turns even a good lens to mush.

 

If you want to see sharp, try a Leica M8. There is no AA filter and the results are shocking even compared to a D700.

 

I find all three of my 24`s look the same on my D700, AF, original 24 2.8, 24 AIS, and I don`t see a significant fall off to the corners under normal viewing. It is not something that jumps out at you. Perhaps pixel peeping?

[ShunCheung]

I happen to have several lenses to give me 24mm, including a few f2.8 zooms, the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D and the

24mm/f3.5 PC-E. I tried them all a couple of weeks ago on my D700. At least to me, the 24mm/f2.8 is as good as

the other ones, including the 17-35mm/f2.8 at 24mm, etc.

 

The attached image was shot with the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D at f8 on the D700 on a tripod. (ISO 200 and 1/60sec) I

focused on the fountain but the background is still within the depth of field. At least to me, the 24mm/f2.8 looks quite

good, about on par with the other much-more-expensive lenses. At the pixel level, there is clearly a bit of chromatic

aberration, but nothing excessive for an old optical design.

 

I wonder what your aperture settings are and are you using a tripod? The D700 has a focus fine tune feature. I would

at least give that a try and see whether you can get better results with some tuning.<div></div>

[dmitry_kiyatkin]

On my D700 24mm f2.8 AF-D work and looks OK. It is not the best, but very usable. The 24-70mm f/2.8 looks better, but at what SIZE. 28mm and 20mm AF-D are about as good as the 24mm. I think the 35mm is somehow a little better. Still fior me the 24-70 beats them all. Maybe the Nano coating helps?

 

I do somehow think that 24mm on film camera seemed better.

 

I wish they would update the wides primes. I do not care about the f-stop, I just want a small rel fast wide angle with a little better IQ.

[georg_s1]

Dmitry, my thoughts exactly... . I'm using an older AiS 2.8/24 and it's not the sharpest lens I own but with a bit of

sharpening in PS it suit's my needs just fine. I just don't want to schlepp around all these fine, new lenses (AF-S 24-70, AF-

S 14-24), even if they are better than the older ones. In fact, I've added a 3.5/20, a 3.5/28 and a 2.0/35 to my arsenal. All of

them are Ai or AiS and small and a joy to use and to carry. georg

[jose_angel]

I also have the impression that the 24-70 is sharper than the prime. Currently I`m not using the 24/2.8 but the 24-70

or the 14-24 when I need that FL.<p>

 

I wonder if extreme care is needed to have super sharp pics with this lens... it seems to me that some times is

sharper than others. Flare, optimal focus distance or that CA could limit that sharpness, thought. Read flare issues

on 24mm lenses <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ORjz">here.</a><p>

 

Could you post a sample? Perhaps any user could tell you about it. I only have one pic on the web, which I consider

sharp, low CA, from the thread above, but not so useful as it`s a <a

href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00O/00OSXJ-41789084.jpg">close-up taken with a D300.</a>

[brooks_lester]

I know absolute sharpness won't be evident unless I'm on sticks and stopped down. But head to head, in the same shooting

conditions, hand-held or on sticks, open or stopped down, my Tamron 28-75 and NIkkor 50mm f/1.8AF are both noticeably

sharper.

 

Thanks for your prompt responses.

[ShunCheung]

A 50mm lens is much simplier to design than a fairly wide 24mm. Why should anybody be surprised that the 50mm

is "sharper"? You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

I have done head-to-head comparisons among several Nikon lenses at 24mm, including the 14-24mm/f2.8, 17-

35mm/f2.8, 24-70mm/f2.8, 12-24mm/f4 DX, 24mm/f2.8 AF-D and 24mm/f3.5 PC-E; previously I also had the 24-

85mm AF-S. IMO the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D is still quite good today on DSLRs.

As I pointed out earlier this year, one big difference between the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D and the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S G is

that the "prime" has a lot less vignetting at f2.8 (and of course 24mm).

[hudspeth]

Hi Brooks,

Shun suggested AF fine tuning your 24mm. Have you tried that?

[tony_estcourt]

I use the 24mm AI (manual focus) on my D700 and its sharp on 12x16" exhibition prints. I dont get any colour fringing or noticeable edge darkening at all. My original plan was to upgrade to a AF version but apparently the optics are the same.

[brooks_lester]

I'll try focus fine tuning, but I don't think that's the issue. The images shot with this lens simply lack sharpness throughout the

image. No one area seems to be in focus more than any other, focus point and DOF considerations aside.

 

Thanks

[ShunCheung]

Brooks, I have demonstrated that at least I think my 24mm/f2.8 AF-D is quite decent on my D700, and I am quite picky about sharpness so that I check images at the pixel level, as most serious photographers and editors would do.

 

While I could be wrong, but most likely either there is something wrong with your lens or something wrong with your technique. Typically I would check out the latter first. E.g., are you testing with a tripod, mirror lock up, etc.? You can shoot at 45-degrees into a flat surface (e.g. a wall) and see whether the focus is off.

[ilkka_nissila]

Brooks, your experience mirrors mine. I recommend that you get one the newer 24mm/25mm options from Nikon or Zeiss.