Nikkor 24/2.8 pre-AI vs. AI/AiS

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It's my understanding that the pre-AI versions of the 24/2.8 has an optical formula of 9 elements in 7 groups, while the AI and AiS vesions have 9 elements in 9 groups. I'm wondering whether there are any tangible differences in the two formulae with respect to resolution across the frame.</p>

<p>In his review site, Bjorn Rorslett claims that there are differences in lenses' propensity to ghost and flare, but seems to imply that both are equally sharp.</p>

<p>I'm considering picking up a nicely AI'ed copy of the later, multicoated version of the pre-AI 24/2.8, which looks very much like the AI version, but will get the AI or AiS version instead if there are good reasons to do so.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The later version of the lens has a smaller focus ring rotation angle and CRC, which is supposed to improve its close-focus performance.</p>

<p>At that time, Nikon only updated its optical designs if there was a good reason to do so, especially if it meant adding mechanical complexity. Given that excellent condition samples of the Ai/Ai-S version are cheaply available, I'd hold out for a later lens. Unless that pre-Ai version is unmissably cheap!</p>

[vince-p]

<p>And here's a question: Me, I'd avoid the 24/2.8 altogether -- Rorslett swears the 24/2.8 is better than the 24/2. I've had three copies of the 24/2.8 and found all of them rather flatl in rendition/contrast and not particularly sharp. Surely the 24/2, which in every other contemporary (then) maker's lineup is a superior lens to the more downmarket 24/2.8, has to be better than that? Opinions? </p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>The later version of the lens has a smaller focus ring rotation angle and CRC, which is supposed to improve its close-focus performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor always had CRC; it was, in fact, the first CRC lens. The focus throw (I think that's what Joe means by "focus ring rotation angle"?) is smaller on the AI-S version (most AI-S lenses have reduced focus throws), but the AI and pre-AI versions are pretty much the same.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Craig, I didn't think anyone could be confused by the phrase "focus ring rotation angle", whereas the focus "throw" of a lens could also mean the amount by which a lens moves forward during focus. We don't usually throw things round in a circle (boomerangs excepted).</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for the input, guys. It's also my understanding that all versions of the lens have CRC. My concern is with any differences in sharpness between them.</p>

[alan_wilder1]

<p>I've owned and tested the 24/2 and 24/2.8 Ai-S lenses and the f/2.8 version is the better optic if resolution is your main criterion. I can't comment on the pre-Ai version (9/7 design) but I suspect either the Ai or Ai-S (9/9 design) were slightly better. If you want better resolution performance, consider the Zeiss 25/2 or 24/1.4 G AFS Nikkor if money and size is no object.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>Money is indeed an object. In fact, it's just working its way UP to object, from mere idea. But thanks. Good to see verification. Perhaps I'm just spoiled by the Rokkor X 24mm f/2.8 and the OM Zuiko 24mm f/2. For my digital Nikons I have the 16-35/4 which is superb at 24mm; and the DX 16-85/4.0-5.6 which is also very good at 24mm and even good stopped down at the FX equivalent of 16mm. On my film cameras I miss having a 24mm prime. I have the 20/3.5 which I'm fond of and the 28/2 which is stellar, so I should shut up and not complain. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>On my film cameras I miss having a 24mm prime. I have the 20/3.5 which I'm fond of and the 28/2 which is stellar, so I should shut up and not complain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I, too, have the esteemed Nikkor 28/2, as well as the FD 24/2 to use on my Canon FD bodies. The FD lens is the best MF 24mm SLR lens ever made, at least according to those in the know. So perhaps you should pick up an FD body.</p>

<p>I don't use my Nikkor lenses primarily to use on film bodies, though I do have an F2, but rather to use on my EOS digital bodies. It is, indeed, a great irony that virtually <em>all</em> Nikkor lenses are compatible with all Canon EOS bodies (with a suitable adapter, of course), but not with all Nikon bodies.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I have an FD body so there you go. My problems are over. (Indeed I'm selling the more premier of my FD bodies, an F1n. as we speak. Or almost as we speak. Along with a couple of lenses.) </p>

<p>the Canon eos mount has proved most receptive to all lenses except Canon FD, it seems. Nikons today will mount every lens back to 1977, and a few of the digitials (d3200, etc) will even mount the F-era non-AI lenses. Otherwise having a non-AI lens rendered into AI mount is no big deal. </p>

<p>Me, if I had a 5dMk2, I'd be putting my Leica R lenses on that baby. (They got their 24mm f/2.8 from Minolta, btw.....)</p>

<p>I'll have to get that FD 24/2. See how it stands up to the Rokkor.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>Look for a Sigma Super Wide II instead</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>IMO all of the Nikkor 24 lens are very good. I love that focal length and have the f/2.8 non-ai, ais and af (non D) versions plus a Sigma EX DG f/1.8. Of the Nikkor's the ais seems sharper than the other Nikkors but stopped down to f/4 I can't see a difference. The sharpest of the bunch however is the Sigma. Use it wide open and take advantage of the almost 1:2 macro regularly and I think it's the best 24 I've ever owned!</p>