Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF vs. 28mm f/2.8 AF

[tbs]

<p>Is there any notable difference in sharpness, color rendition, contrast, flare, etc., between these two basic wide-angle lenses?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 28mm f/2.8 AF is a very simple lens, on film it was probably the worst autofocus prime made by Nikon. Lots of distortion, not quite sharp until f/8. The 28mm f/2.8D has an additional element and it's somewhat better, with less distortion and sharpness is okay but not among the best wide angle primes. The 24mm f/2.8 AF as well as the AF-D versions are, AFAIK, optically the same. Both the 28mm and the 24mm exhibit quite a bit of chromatic aberration on digital cameras, especially on the edges of the frame.</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>I have the 20 mm F4 love its very sharp on my D300 and D700</p>

[tbs]

<p>Ilkka: I'm not sure if you mean "The 28mm" or "The 24mm" in your first sentence. Please clarify. Also, by the way, I'm using film Nikons, the N80 and F100.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>I own neither of these lenses because of relatively poor reviews.<br>

This site provides a good summary on the lenses... <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html</a></p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Thomas, the first sentence is about the 28mm f/2.8 AF as it reads; the second is about the "D" version of that lens which is different.</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>I owned the 24mm F2.8 AFD and 28mm F2.8 AFD. The latter was mediocre with unacceptable CA seen on film. The former is better but no great shakes. The older 28mm F2.8 AIS is superior to both IMO.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If manual focus is an option for you, either the 28mm f/2 Ai-S or the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S are good lenses, better than any of the autofocus wide angle primes (in my opinion). The f/2.8 Ai-S is still made.</p>

[david-m]

<p>I have just used the 28 2.8 AFD together with the 50 1.8 on a two month shoot in Africa, using a D700. I think that there is nothing wrong with the 28 lens, and in fact I am truly impressed by the quality of many of these images. Can't say I noticed any lack of decent contrast or bad CA, just some softness in the corners, which is the least important part of an image for me.<br>

I have just sold some prints taken with this lens at sizes around 20 x30 cm (okay, not huge I admit) but they look great and the client was very pleased.<br>

I have never used the 24, so can't comment.<br>

BTW, the 50 1.8 is excellent, but we all know that don't we.<br>

David</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 85/1.4 is a better lens than either the 28/2.8 or 24/2.8. Since the FOV doesn't matter to you, why not go for the brass ring? Someone else mentioned the 50/1.8. For most of us, however, uses for the 28 and 24 don't overlap - a matter of wide vs. very-wide.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>The 24 AF is better with film than digital. I get great shots with my f100 but it never did float my boat on a digital slr.</p>

[darius.tulbure]

<p>Aside from the angle of view, what differs in using the 24mm f2.8 AFD on film and digital? If you're using it on a full frame digital, even the difference in the angle of view disappears, so what is that makes it so different on digital?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Film is a flat surface (actually not quite as there are film flatness issues, but that is another topic); digital sensors have photosites that are like a bunch of tiny wells that have walls among photosites. Some of the newer sensors have a layer of microlenses to bend the direction of the light a bit. I have tried the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D on the 24MP D3X; corner performance is terrible. It is more acceptable on the less-demanding D3 and D700.</p>