Nikon 24mm 1.4 vs. 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5

[edward_mcausher]

<p>Alright, is it worth spending $1500 more on the 24mm? I shoot with the D300s, I do all kinds of photography, all amateur but obviously still want the best possible photos. I do "portraits" of my daughter, landscapes, wildlife, whatever is around. My next investment into photography is a wide angle lens. I don't mind the fixed focal length as i can imagine and have read about some advantages; but other than that what would I be paying for in the 24mm that I wouldn't get in the 10-24mm? Is it not worth it on the D300s? Thanks in advance everybody!</p>

[waltflanagan]

<blockquote>

<p>what would I be paying for in the 24mm that I wouldn't get in the 10-24mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>f1.4 vs f4.5 costs $1500. Do you need f1.4? Only you can answer that.</p>

[john_morris4]

24mm is not especially wide on DX. What you would be paying for is over

three stops more aperture (take pictures in about a tenth as much light, if you

can stand the limited depth of field), FX frame coverage (which you don't

need), and general all-around image quality. If you're at the stage of learning

about what you can do with a wide-angle lens, you're likely much better off

with a wider, cheaper, and smaller zoom lens.

 

You might also give the cheap and tiny AF 24mm f/2.8, which should be a

nice little wide normal lens on a D300.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Yesterday you were considering the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S: <a href="00XaKT"><B>Noob question - wide angle lens</B></a>. Now suddenly you want the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S. Do you have too much money burning a hole in your pocket?</p>

<p>As I mentioned in yesterday's thread, Nikon's wide zooms such as the 10-24mm/f3.8-4.5 AF-S DX and 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX are excellent on their long end. In other words, they are great 24mm lenses. They are somewhat weak on their wide end so that you may want to stay away from their widest settings if you need the best results.</p>

<p>Therefore, unless you must have f1.4 for certain low-light photography, there is no point to get the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S. It'll cost you a lot of money and give you far less flexability than those DX zooms. For photograping children, landscape, etc., I don't see why you need the 24mm/f1.4.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>When I have my 18-70 on, 24mm is one of the lengths I go to the most. (I also liked 35m on 35mm, that's probably why.) I would, myself, never invest that much money in a lens like that for DX. When I shoot at that length, I don't generally need a wicked fast aperture. I need wide apertures at 35mm and 50mm and 105mm and have sub-f2.8 lenses at all those lengths.</p>

<p>In short, Shun is right, you don't need this lens on DX, generally.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If I read the original post, I cannot help thinking the answer is the old mantra. Wanting the best possible photos does not require the more expensive lenses. Photographers make photos, not their gear.<br>

Next to that, already mentioned, 24mm is not very wide on DX. Wide angles are a lousy choice for portraits (in my opinion) and useless for wildlife, so this will be really for the landscape work.<br>

And honestly, if I read the older post Shun mentioned, the above idea is getting stronger. A D300s is already a rather complicated machine to get started with. And next, to immediately next start looking for very expensive speciality lenses.... it sounds like the advice really should be: a photography course and some good books. Learn whether you really need a f/1.4 ~35mm lens for what you do, rather than wondering why the lens is so expensive.</p>

<p>But, more constructive possibly: which lenses do you already have?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think fast wide angles are very useful for indoor people photography and portraiture. If I used the DX format I'm sure I'd get the 24/1.4 for that. I use FX myself and will eventually have both the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4.</p>

<p>As for situations where the f/1.4 vs. f/4ish difference matters, just about any situation when photographing people that may move when it's not bright sunlight. While the zooms (i.e. 14-24 and 24-70) are good at 24mm the 24/1.4 is easily their optical superior in my opinion. The 14-24 has less distortion at 24mm but the image clarity is better on the prime, particularly the out-of-focus areas are much more smooth at the same apertures. Also, the 24/1.4 is much smaller than the 14-24 which makes it more comfortable to handle and less intimidating to your subjects. With kids running around there is bound to be food and liquids sprayed on your lens eventually; the 14-24 can't be protected from that while the 24mm and 10-24 can. As for the variable aperture zooms, they can be compact but at least for myself at any kind of indoor situation f/2.8 is about the slowest that I can consider (for the maximum aperture). I may shoot at f/4 but to get a good f/4 you need a lens that is already stopped down by that point. After daylight start to fade I typically shoot wide angle images at about f/2 - again it's good to be able to stop down to the shooting aperture. This is with FX and reasonably stationary, co-operating subjects. With subjects that don't stay still it's even more important to have access to a fast lens if you want to stop the movement with reasonable probability. Of course at wide apertures not every shot is going to be in perfect focus but at least the images will have less noise and the main subject is clearly separated; a few misses are ok in my opinion if the ones that are successful are of better quality.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Edward, For one thing you're off by about $500. It's about $2200. I know because I've had my eye on one for awhile. For full frame, I find the 24mm to be one of my favorite lenses. I'm not sure that I need f/1.4 on a wide angle lens, but I would like to have something faster than the alternative f/2.8 lens. I would have been quite happy if they introduced an f/2 version.</p>

<p>And I wouldn't get down on a noob for wanting to buy great glass. I think great lenses put a novice at a huge advantage for becoming a master of their craft. I cringe when I see a friend buy a new camera with a kit lens.</p>

 

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>but obviously still want the best possible photos</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is dependend more on the photographer, than on his lenses..<br />As I understand it from your previous posts, you're starting out with photography, so I'd think that if you <em>realy</em> want the best possible results : Start simple , you'l learn more from a prime lens like a 35mm 1.8 or 24mm 2.8, then from diving in with the most expensive lenses ( and heavy...).<br />To get best results it often also helps to take some classes at a reputable institute, this pays of better than "best Equipment" mostly.. ( just my thoughts...).</p>

[photo5]

<p>24mm isn't much of a wide angle on the D300, it's a normal wide angle. And unless you plan to use it a bunch, $1500 for a 24mm is nuts if you ask me. You can get the 10-24mm Nikon for half that, and it would serve you well.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>you'd be much better off IMO getting the nikon 10-24 for wide-angle and the sigma 30/1.4 for low-light shots. </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>If you require f1.4 at that focal length then yes, it depends on your purpose. I very much like medium wide angles although I don't require that kind of speed or shallow DoF when using them. You will be paying a great deal extra for the speed and gain a few precentage points in IQ if you are using a tripod to get max sharpness. I would look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 as a better value, if it is wide enough. Still the skill of the photographer is more important than the equipment used. IMHO the Nikkor 24mm f1.4 is a special use pro lens. You should be making money using it, lots of it.</p>

[michael_tabor]

<p>Ed,<br>

I hear everyones good replies and you have to ask yourself is an equivalent 36mm f1.4 (on DX) what you are after. I did a lot of on the street photography and people in places in my film days and the 20mm 2.8 and 35mm 1.4 were my main lenses with the 35mm my most used lens. To a much lesser degree I used the 85 1.4 and 180 2.8.<br>

If you follow this premise the 10-24 will give you a 15-36mm (DX) which is perfect for street, people in places, and interior groups. The 24 1.4 will give you a 35 1.4 (DX) great for low light, but the 10-24 give great versatility and it is small and light which you will love for everyday shooting. <br>

If you want a better WA zoom with even sharper optics get the FX 16-35 f4 VR (24-53 in dx). Notice it has VR. It is big, heavy and says "I'm a pro" which may be important to you, plus being a FX lens your good for your future camera upgrades. Most off it is sharp as a tack in the center and the equal to the 14-24 by some accounts.</p>