Nikon 24mm 1.4G

[akshun]

<p>Hey everyone, im curently shooting with a d700 , my list of lenses includes the 70-200mm 2.8vr, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4d, and 50mm 1.4d.<br>

Im looking to expand to a wide angle and its a toss up between the 14-24mm 2.8, 24mm pc-e, or the new 24mm 1.4g.<br>

I would mainly use it for landscape shots as well as general travel use, people and misc objects, any recommendations???<br>

thx in advance,<br>

steve</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I'm one of the first lucky owners of the lens. It's not cheap but if you can aford it I recommend it..... You will love it...<br>

There is nothing else to say about it.... whatever use you give it, it is great! <br>

Here you will find sample shots from me and another person all the way to the end....<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00W2CS<br>

I hope you get it.... Cheers!</p>

[john_newsome]

<p>For the uses you need it for looks like the 14-24 is the best option. Its heavy as hell but I guess your used to the weight with the other lenses. 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, thats a very nice collection. Personally I would prefer the 24mm 1.4 just for the low light.</p>

<p>John</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I do globe trotting. A mid zoom lens is my most used. The ultra wide and tele is not used much. You also may take weight size into consideration. The 24 1.4 is neat for low light handheld shots. With your 85 1.4, I have a 1.8 only ;-) awesome. You could also get a 35/2 too instead.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I'm sorry to say but when I compared the 24-70 at 24 mm with the 24 f/1.4 I didn't hesitate to get the prime....<br>

I believe you can zoom with your feet.... the distortion on the zoom is as bad as the distortion on my 17-55....<br>

Pared with my D700 there is nothing that can compare! </p>

[akshun]

<p>Ok, cool, great responses, first off the price is not an issue, Rene says it good for all uses(landscape too?) and John says go for the 14-24mm, its a tough call, i am, however leaning toward the 24mm 1.4g for saving weight on my travels, thing is i have a big trip this summer, going to Malta in the center of the meditterranean , so you can see i will be doing a whole range of shots, night, landscape, long exposure, as well as alot of architecture(churches and buildings).<br>

i love the looks of that 14-24mm and the 24mm 1.4g equally the same.</p>

<p>hmmmm, what to do,lol.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Steven, if I were you, I would get the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. That is the best general-purpose landscape and travel wide angle.

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I'm sorry Shun! I don't agree on that! The 17-35 is as big and heavy as my 17-55....<br>

My last 4 trips to Europe I took it with me but I really didn't use it.... Too heave and too big. i had great evenings in Prague taking shots at night and every time I was carrying my D300 with a a 35 f/2.<br>

that's the main reason i got a D700 and now the 24..... The 35 wasn't wide enough.....<br>

Don't misunderstand me.... the 24 is not that small or light anyway... i was a bit disappointed when I saw it... it is 3 times as big as my 35.... yet, half the size of a 17-55 or 17-35....</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I second Shun's 17-35mm suggestion</p>

[ShunCheung]

Rene, maybe the 17-35 is too heavy and big for you, but the OP is considering the 14-24mm and 24mm/f3.5 PC-E also. The 17-35mm is smaller than both of those.

 

<P>

Except for the 24mm/f1.4, I have all of those lenses in question. The 14-24mm/f2.8 is a bulky and specialized lens. It has a bulging front element and cannot take filters. That is definitely not a landscape or travel lens for me. The 24mm PC-E is manual focus and excellent for landscape but is by no means a general purpose lens.

 

<P>

The 24mm/f1.4 is also a special-purpose lens great for indoor, low-light work. But the OP already has 24mm within his range. I would only get that if low-light performance is important. With a D700 or D3S, do you really need f1.4?

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Both 14-24 and 24 PC-E are special-purpose lenses in my view (I have both). Got the 24/1.4 today so whether it's suitable for landscapes remains to be seen over the next days. It surely has an unbelievable smooth bokeh as far as wide-angles lenses go, though. Also has a hot spot in IR. No lens is perfect.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

Hi Bjorn, while you are here, have you used the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR yet? I saw some of the samples from photozone.de and that lens looks very disappointing on the wide end. That is why I am reluctant to suggest that.

 

 

Otherwise, if that lens is fine, it is a possibility also. But of course it is an f4.

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Shun... I see your point!<br>

But the grade of distortion of the 24-70 compared with the 24 prime is too much....<br>

As far as needing the 1.4 when you are using a D3s or D700... i will say YES coz when traveling and relaxing at the same time there is no room for a tripod... at least that is my humble opinion.... i am sure other people might think different.....</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p><em>With a D700 or D3S, do you really need f1.4?</em></p>

<p>Yes! Fast lenses are even more important with the D700/D3/D3S, IMHO. Now that you can get great results at ISO 6400 or 12800, you need a lens with which you can compose and focus in near darkness, even if you don't actually shoot wide open.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Shun: I just got the 16-35/4 as well as the 24/1.4. Will do technical testing of both over the weekend, then use them for real-life shooting. It's early days so I won't commit myself too much in describing them. I do know the 16-35 appears to be free of IR hot spots whilst the 24/1.4 clearly shows them, an issue which for me is an important factor.</p>

[akshun]

<p>Hey guys, thanks very much for all the valuable input, Rene, your shots with the 24mm 1.4g are stunning, i like the sharpness alot!<br>

Shun, i checked out your image portfolio as well, one word, awesome! Im not sure what it is, but something keeps pulling me towards the 14-24mm 2.8, as for me and my personal taste, i kind of like that wide angle, crazy DOF, borderline fisheye look.<br>

I guess the best part of this terrific hobby/profession is that there is no right or wrong, its a matter of personal preference.<br>

so i think ill take a chance and go with the 14-24mm 2.8 , i can however, see myself getting the 24mm down the road, Damn that thing is sharp!!</p>

<p>thanks again for all the response,<br>

steven</p>

[fpessolano]

<p>Bjorn<br>

Looking forward to read your comments on the 24 ... especially for who already owns the 14-24 like me. I am still debating on taking this lens or start my 2-3 years saving plan for a 400VR instead.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It boils down to what type of lens you want. Similar to Bjorn, I view the 14-24, 24mm/f1.4 and 24mm PC-E special-purpose tools:</p>

<ul>

<li>14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S: For super-wide enthuists, indoor tight corners and perhaps some landscape. Limited zoom range and not being able to use filters is a pain. I know Lee is developing a special filter for it; that filter system is huge and cannot be more inconvenient. In the range they overlap, the 14-24 is better than the 17-35 optically.</li>

<li>24mm/f3.5 PC-E: Manual focus, great for architecture and landscape photography. Because of its extra-large image circle, you can get corner-to-corner sharpness even on the D3X. The lack of zoom and manual focus are obvious limitations.</li>

<li>24mm/f1.4 AF-S: Fast wide in a world where ISO 6400 and even 12800 is now common place.</li>

</ul>

<p>The more general-purpose lenses are:</p>

<ul>

<li>17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S: My favorite wide angle in the last decade. This can easily be the only wide-angle lens you need for the FX format.</li>

<li>16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR: The jury is still out on this lens. Hopefully I'll get to play around with one soon. For some, f4 is a bit too slow for indoors. I was hoping that they would be a good replacement for the 17-35. It is cheaper but not smaller. As I said, we saw some very disappointing corner performance from photozone.de's full-size samples. If it is merely one lens, it is not a big deal. If we start getting confirmation that it is normal for this lens, that would be a major problem.</li>

</ul>

<p>Steven, thanks for your comment.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<blockquote>

<p>I do know the 16-35 appears to be free of IR hot spots whilst the 24/1.4 clearly shows them, an issue which for me is an important factor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How does IR hotspots show up in regular photography?</p>

<p>Going back to the OP's question: I do not see how you can take advantage of the f/1.4 for landscape photography like the way a photojournalist will with this lens.</p>

<p>Landscape is often all about high resolution and not speed. I do not think DP Review has tested this lens yet or else you would be able to check out the peaks of this lens and compare it with other lenses you have in mind. Based on experience on the D3X, I know the 24mm PC-E has very high peaks.</p>

<p> </p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>This has been a very helpful discussion for me. I was minutes away from ordering a 14-24. Now, based on this thread and rereading Bjorn's reviews, I've decided to get a 200 f/2 instead.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Steven,</p>

<p>Since you indicate you want to use the lens in Malta... I live close to that place, on Sicily, and one thing to slightly keep in mind: we have light by the bucketloads here. You'll not be searching for light here, unless it is night. So, if you want to use the wide-open possibilities of either a f/2.8 or f/1.4 lens, I think you may need ND filters during the day. For which the 14-24 is quite disadvantaged....<br>

If you're going to stop down anyway to f/5.6 or f/8, then you could do with much smaller and cheaper lenses too, although I understand the lens is for more than just this trip.<br>

Anyway, just a consideration.</p>

[fpessolano]

<p>I honestly do not miss filters on the 14-24. It is too wide for a polarizer, I passed the worry of scratching it, and I do not use ND filters but braketing instead. It is a special lens, but simply stunning. What I would really need to see is that the 24 is already excellent in rendering at wide apertures (1.4-3.5) so to be very useful in low light. Performance stopped down will probably not be better than the 14-24.<br>

If this lens compares to the zoom like the 50/1.4 compares to the 50/1.8 .... not interested at this price level.</p>

[akshun]

<p>Hey Wouter, thanks for the tip!<br>

I just went to the shop and ordered the 14-24mm, will be in next week! As far as the trip, i will be using the new wide angle mainly for inside the churches and buildings that we will be touring at the time,as well as late evening landscapes. im also bringing my 50mm 1.4d and 85mm 1.4 just for the odd snaps of people and other surroundings at night or when we go for dinner.I'm also gonna have my d300 with the 18-200mm vr (with polarizer) im hoping that is enough:)<br>

i think most of our free time will be at the beach during the day, we got a coolpix for that as im sure you guys dont wanna see pics of me in my speedo,lol.<br>

Anyway, i hear that we can see Sicily from the rooftop of the house where we are staying, ill be looking your way my friend.<br>

cheers!<br>

steve</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'll be waving ;-) Enjoy the trip - it's lovely here.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Nikon USA warehouse inventory control is being done in the next 10 days or so. No products will be shipped to dealers during this period. This means the preorders for the new Nikkor 24mm f/1.4 will have to wait till inventory is completed in the US.</p>

<p>If anyone knows something else, please keep us posted. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>