looking for a 24 mm prime

[arjen_and_edith]

Hello! We have a Nikon F80 and currently three lenses: a 50 mm/1.8

prime and 24-120/3.5-5.6 and 70-300/4-5.6 zooms. We use them mainly

for travel photography (landscapes, people, wildlife, ...).

 

While the 24-120 lens has a very useful range and is useful in most

conditions, in low light it is very slow, even at 24 mm. So, what we

actually need is a 24 mm prime. Now the question is: which one?

 

As far as we know (we don't have much knowledge about the market), we

have five choices:

 

1. Nikkor AF 24/2.8

2. Nikkor MF 24/2

3. Sigma AF 24/1.8

4. Sigma AF 24/2.8

5. 24 mm lens of another obscure brand, like Tamron or Tokina

 

Some considerations: it seems best to stick to Nikon brand. On the

other hand, an f/2.8 lens doesn't seem much improvement relative to

f/3.5. The other available Nikkor is a manual focus lens. In

principle, this is no problem, but this lens seems to be very

expensive, probably even second-hand. Then the Sigmas. Sigma 24/1.8

didn't get good reviews on this site, but of course, the 1.8 sounds

great. We don't know anything about the Sigma 24/2.8 lens.

 

Other considerations: The Sigma 24/1.8 lens has a 77 mm filter size,

which is annoying and expensive, while the Nikkors have 52 mm - the

same as our 50 mm prime, so that is great. Nikkor AF 24/2.8 has Close-

Range Correction (CRC), we don't know about the other lenses. Also a

consideration is the availability of second-hand lenses, because most

of these lenses are just too expensive for us, new. Otherwise we

would buy a tilt-and-shift 24 mm right away of course!

 

Another thing we don't know: you should need less light at 24 mm,

because you cover a wider view angle, so more light gathering. Still,

our 24-120 lens seems very slow at 24 mm. Is it possible that a zoom

lens at 24 mm gathers less light than a 24 mm prime? In this case, a

24/2.8 prime would be an improvement of more than one f-stop, and it

would be less necessary to go even lower, to f/2 or f/1.8?

 

Thanks a lot for any input!

[bruce_rubenstein]

A manual focus lens will not meter with the N80 - forget that. A 2.8 prime lens will effectivly be 2 stops faster than your zoom, because there are fewer elements and less light is lost. The diameter of the lens elements, and not the focal length, determines the light gathering of a lens. Try finding a used AF Nikon 24/2.8; it doesn't even have to be a D lens. In the long run, this will be a cheaper (if you decide to sell it later) and you'll have a better lens.

[jim_gifford]

<<A 2.8 prime lens will effectivly be 2 stops faster than your zoom, because there are fewer elements and less light is lost.>>

 

This is not accurate. There's less than a full stop difference between the 24-120 zoom and the lovely 24mm Nikkor you're suggesting. For your statement about "effectively two stops faster" to be a true statement, you'd have to argue that the more numerous lens elements in the zoom soak up more than half of the light getting through to the film plane. Gosh, if THAT were true we'd all use zoom lenses instead of hats for shade in the summer.

 

<< The diameter of the lens elements, and not the focal length, determines the light gathering of a lens. >>

 

If that were a true statement, the zoom would gather more light (its elements are much larger in diameter than those of the 24mm prime). Maybe you're thinking of binoculars and telescopes, where the larger diameter models tend to be much "brighter" than the compacts. In binocs, for a given magnification (analogous to camera lens focal length) the bigger the front lens the brighter the view. In camera optics, the f-numbers for max aperture are the great equalizers... because in terms of exposure settings f/4 is f/4 whether you use a zoom or a prime, a wide angle or a telephoto. The focal length is accounted for in the process of determining the f-number. See the archived forum for some discussions that might clear this up for ya.

 

Have fun,

[eli_zwillinger]

Nikkor MF 24/2.3? B&H reports an AIS 2.0, but I see no 2.3... Nikon's got a 28mm F/1.4 if you can live without the extra 8 or 9 degrees of view, but its also insanely expensive ($1400 vs $550)

 

I wouldn't knock Tamron or Tokina any more than Sigma, it's a crapshoot with all three manufacturers - some of the lenses are good, some of the lenses are not. Look for reviews of all three manuf's lenses, maybe check out your local pro shop to see what they recommend.

 

WRT filter size, would a 24mm vignette with a 77-52 step down adapter? (I dont have much experience shooting wider than 35, and on mine I dont need to step down)