chris cornwell blog Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>I recently purchased a 'Demo' Nikon 24mm, f2.8 lens from Adorama. It came in no time and packaged properly. It looked almost like new! However, I've been getting somewhat blurry shots with it, whether indoors or out, people or objects, even when using a tripod! Has anybody experienced this?<br> I shoot manual with a D300 plus tripod especially for interior shots. Please help!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamchuttonjr Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>Are you using an AF or MF lens?<br> My copy of the 24/2.8 AIS is sharp on my F3HP, D200 and D300. It is prone to flare though. It's only soft when I mis-focus or if I use slow shutter speeds hand held.</p> <p>How do other lenses work? Maybe you have accidently mis-set an AF setting,</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>My 24/2.8D-AF was a fine lens, but didn't produce blistering sharpness. The 17-35/2.8 is every bit as good to my eye, and has the zoom range to boot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memccolm Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>I got a used Nikon 24mm f/2.8D lens a couple years back and I was quite happy with the results on film. I recently was testing it on my D80 and noticed that some of the photos were not as sharp as I expected them to be. I put it on a tripod and did some test shots of a bookcase. At f/2.8 the contrast and sharpness were quite a bit lower than at f/4. The contrast and sharpness look good at f/5.6 and f/8, but at f/4 I get better results with my Nikon 18-55mm "kit" lens. Another thing I noticed with my 24mm lens is that if I re-focus (without changing the composition) this lens seems to vary it's focus more than my other lenses, though I still get the focus confirmation dot in the viewfinder.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>We had a similar thread from Chris about a month ago: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SR4V">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SR4V</a></p> <p>I think it is about time for Chris to show us same image samples so that we understand the issue a little better. <br> My 24mm/f2.8 AF-D is a fine lens. Exactly what type of subject matter (still, moving??), shutter speed and aperture are we talking about?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris cornwell blog Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>AF</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_p Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>I have an AF-D and an old F-mount 24/2.8. Both seem to perform better on film.</p> <p>I have had similar experiences as Michael, above. The cheesy (I honestly cannot bash this lens) 18-55 does a lot better on digital than the 24's.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris cornwell blog Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>Here's an example of an exterior shot I took this morning:<br> Cloudy<br> f/22, 1/8s, ISO 400<br> AF-S<br> Dynamic 9 point<br> Metering: matrix<br> I have been taking mainly interior shots, f/22, using a tripod, non-moving objects, with somewhat good lighting. My shots with a kodak 'point and shoot' performed better overall. I do not have an interior shot to show (it's at the office).</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris cornwell blog Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>SOOC shot</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>Why did you use f22? And on top of that a slow 1/8 sec that can be prone to camera shake, even on a tripod.<br> At f22, diffraction will likely rob a lot of the sharpness from your images, especially with the high pixel desnity from a 12MP DX sensor.</p> <p>I would suggest reshoot the same image at f8 and 1/30 sec at ISO 200 with 1-second delay to let any vibration from mirror slap to die down. Also try f5.6 and 1/60 sec.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_p Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>Chris,<br> If you are shooting scapes at smaller apertures, try setting the infinity mark on the depth of field scale, and don't focus at all through the viewfinder. See what happens.....</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris cornwell blog Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>Well, I wanted a sharp image front to back. I'm a sucker for sharpness. I figure I ought to have a sharp image from a sharp camera and lens (hopefully). I'll try out both your suggestions. Thanks!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 <p>Try something at f8 and ISO 400, and on a tripod.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>I had no issues with this lens ... it was also one of Galen Rowell's favorite lenses.<br> Click on image to see larger version. Nikon D100; Nikkor 24mm/2.8AFD; @f/8; 1/20sec; tripod<br> <a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/481416455_f92c3df48c_o.jpg"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/481416455_39905747f3.jpg" alt="" /> </a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathancraver Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>The 24mm f/2.8D is what is on my D700 90% of the time, I am a sucker for wide angle. I find this lens to be quite sharp, though I'm sure it is not as sharp as either the 17-35 or the new 24-70. Seeing as I can not afford either of those right now, the 24mm suits me quite well, and I find I shoot mostly at f/5.6 or f/8, where the lens seems to be the sharpest. If you can not afford one of the super nice zooms like the 14-24, 17-35, 20-35, or 24-70, then this lens is, in my opinion, is worth every penny and a great "get you through the tough times" wide angle lens. I haven't tried it, but the 18-35 is also supposed to be a quite good lens, especially for the price, and it may be sharper than the 24mm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rene gm Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Are you really surprised that the modern 18-55 is sharper at F4 than the vintage 28? Those new Nikon lenses (esp. the 18-105) are terrific in terms of sharpness.<br> However, center sharpness is not everything. If you need a rock solid build, these plastic lenses are not your choice. Morever, they are not very fast (F4 at most), vignette to some degree at 18mm, and have some distortion to be post processed. Also, the 18-55 (as well as the 18-200 VR, but not the 18-105) is not very sharp at 18mm in the corners, where the 28mm should have better performance.<br> All this said, I personally prefer the 18-105 VR to this really old stuff anytime.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>I've shot with two AF 24/2.8's and tested one D version, all of which I believe to be optically similar. This lens is great on 35mm film, with very sharp and contrasty images. On the digital bodies I've worked with it was disappointing; a lot of CA at the edges at long distances on FX and on DX the overall image appeared a bit fuzzy (compared with the 35/2). If I recall correctly, the rear element moves closer to the sensor as you approach infinity focus, which might explain the CA on digital. The 25mm ZF is better, bigger, and more expensive, and the 24mm PC-E is a lot better (stopped down to f/8 & correctly focused), a lot bigger, and a lot more expensive. If you want an inexpensive, compact, good prime wide angle for digital, perhaps the 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer is suitable (I haven't used one yet). There are reports of people happy with their 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors but I had softness issues with the left and right edges of the image with both whereas the same samples were excellent on film. I recall >10-pixel wide color fringes on the 20mm with the D200, not nice! Nikon tried to fix it but the result was not satisfactory. I don't believe these designs are really a good fit for current digital sensors.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjørn rørslett Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>I'm using the 24/2.8 AIS on D3 and D3X and get excellent results in terms of sharpness and image clarity. Vignetting wide open is modest and disappears beyond f/4 or so. The lens performs best if you keep the aperture in the f/4 to f/11 range. My sample focuses silky-smooth and is a joy to use in the field. I never hesitate to replace my AFS 24-70 with the 24/2.8 if the situation calls for a small, unobtrusive lens.</p> <p>The 18-55 can be a decent performer until its first fall to Earth. Afterwards, there usually is nothing useful left of it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <blockquote> <p>"The 18-55 can be a decent performer until its first fall to Earth. Afterwards, there usually is nothing useful left of it."</p> </blockquote> <p>I believe Bjorn is referring to the poor construction of those plastic mount lenses such as the 18-55. Inside some of those Nikon uses adhesive tape to hold the lens elements in place. A slight impact can knock some of those elements out of position and the optical quality of the lens is simply gone. I believe that is the reason for a lot of those so called "sample variation" on such lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Shun,<br> >Inside some of those Nikon uses adhesive tape to hold the lens elements in place.</p> <p>That's got to be kidding, right? If you're serious, what is your source for this piece of information? I have never heard of a manufacturer using tapes to mount lens elements. The usual way is mechanical.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Arthur, I have to admit that I do not own any Nikon lens with a plastic mount (for good reasons) and certainly have not taken any one of them apart to inspect.</p> <p>My source of information is a person named Bjorn Rorslett, whom I happen to trust. See his post on September 6, 2007: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00MU9M">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00MU9M</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tri-x1 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>I haven't done any scientific tests but my 24mm f2.8 AFD seems to perform as well on my D300 as it did on my f4. It's plenty sharp, IMO -- sharper the the 20mm AFD I had. I probably use it on the D300 more than any other lens because it is the equivalent of a 35mm film lens, is light, compact, and relatively fast when compared to most zooms.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjørn rørslett Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Shun: Well, the person in question can be trusted, but what I did say was that the internal barrel assembly - <em>not</em> the lens elements - on some low-end Nikkors is held together with tape. I observe this fact on a daily basis when I get my share of wreckage from my Nikon repair facility nearby (I scavenge the broken lenses for useful parts including contact blocks for the CPU chip).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>Bjorn, thanks for the clarification.</p> <p>There is finally some sunlight outside, and I just captured these two images back to back, with a D300 and the 24mm/f2.8 AF-S on a sturdy Gitzo tripod. Both images were shot at ISO 200, no filter on the lens, and one-second delay on the D300: one is f8, 1/40 sec and the other f22, 1/5 sec.<P> See the f22 image is considerably softer than the one at f8?</p> <P> P.S. Previously I had the 24mm/f2.8 AI that I bought back in 1978. Now I have the AF-D version. Both of those as well as the AI-S version that Bjorn uses have the same optical formula. </P><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_p Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 <p>FYI,<br> Replacement plastic mounts for the 18-55 II, are $10.??+shipping, direct from Nikon, and take about five minutes to replace.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now