Your thoughts/impressions on the Nikon 24mm/f1.8G?

[photo_galleries]

<p>I'm thinking of getting a prime AF 24mm lens for use with my D800e. I'm not really willing to spend that kind of money on a Nikon 24/1.4, so the choices are the Nikon 24mm/f1.8 or the Sigma 24/1.4 ART. I own Nikon f1.8G lenses (20, 28, 85) and Sigma ART lenses (35,50).</p>

<p>From what I have gathered, advantages of the Sigma 24mm are the f1.4 and better build, while the Nikon is $100 less expensive and reportedly has better better IQ at the edges and corners, while being as sharp as the Sigma at the center.</p>

<p>My conundrum: my favorite everyday lenses are the Sigma 35 and 50mm ART lenses, and if the Sigma 24mm were anywhere like either of those, I'd already have the Sigma, but I've heard the 24mm lags behind those other ones wrt overall IQ. OTOH, I'm hearing good things about the Nikon. I'm leaning toward the Nikon right now, but am still undecided.</p>

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Keith - you may have already seen this but DXO likes it: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography</p>

<p>You could also check out this <a href="http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2084.0.html">thread</a>.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Thanks Chip. I have seen the DXO link, which is one of the reasons that I'm really leaning toward the Nikon. With a DXO total score second only to the Sigma 35/1.4 ART, it must be something special. I don't know how much of that really translates to real world shooting, but still, it says a lot. I don't think I can go wrong with either lens, so I think it might just be a matter of making up my mind. Right now, I'm about 70/30 in favor of the Nikon.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>In that thread I linked, there are some user test shots comparing the f/1.8 Nikkor versus the f/1.4 Sigma. The Nikkor did a little better with flare, perhaps due to Nano coating. Good news is they both look pretty great!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Personally, I pay no attention to DXO scores at all. IMO, you need to actually use a lens in real life situations to know how well it works. Since I have not used either 24mm lens, I can't comment on that. I do have the Nikon 28mm/f1.8 AF-S and Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art. Both are very fine lenses; the Sigma 35mm is especially exceptional.</p>

<p>The difference between those two is that the Sigma 35mm Art weights over twice as much as the Nikon 28mm/f1.8. If I am carrying 2 or 3 small lenses (e.g. nothing beyond a 70-200mm/f2.8), I don't care about that kind of weight difference. However, if I already have a 500mm/f4 in my backpack plus the tripod to support it, I would be reluctant add just a teleconverter. When you need to hike for a few hours, every little bit of extra weight is going to count over time.</p>

<p>For something like a 70-200mm/f2.8, I think good construction is important as the lens elements are getting large and some of the zoom and AF mechanism can wear out over time. Recently I read Lens Rental's tare down of the new Canon 35mm/f1.4. It is great to read about the wonderful construction, but that also translates to weight. For relatively small lens like a 24mm or 35mm, without zooming, I don't find excellent construction all that important. Of course, it also depends on how you use, or abuse, you equipment.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I pay no attention to DXO scores at all. IMO, you need to actually use a lens in real life situations to know how well it works.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree in principle; unfortunately, unless Nikon and Sigma gave me lenses to test before I purchased one, I wouldn't have that luxury. I use DXO as a guideline -- minor score differences probably don't matter quite as much, but differences that are in orders of magnitude do provide some insight. Specifically between these two lenses, the DXO score comparison would just be one of many decision points for me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Keith, I suggest you read some reviews where people actually use those lenses. I have three lenses in Nikon's f1.8 AF-S series: 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm, and they are all fine. Sigma's Art lenses are well known to be excellent as well, although I only have the 35mm/f1.4.</p>

<p>I have little doubt that both of those are fine lenses. There are some occasional lemons (bad samples), of course, but any poor overall design such that every sample is poor is not going to survive in this competitive market, where any bad review is going to spread throughout the internet in no time. As a rule of thumb, if you don't need f1.4, I would get an f1.8 lens. If you are rough on your lenses, perhaps opt for the superior construction; otherwise, I prefer the lighter lens for something that small.</p>

<p>I bought the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 mainly because it is exceptional and almost exactly two years ago, during the holiday season, Amazon had a brief $200 off deal (from $899 down to $699 back then, for just a few hours) and I went for it.</p>

<p>At this point, personally I prefer to get E lenses for Nikon because I believe E is more future proof, but neither lens in this discussion is E.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Agree 100% - reviews do add value, as well as input from users (thus this thread). I do plan to go over Chip's link to the other thread and would appreciate similar links to blogs or other sites that may be less known than the usual online resources (photo.net, imaging resource, dpreview, etc...).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>As a rule of thumb, if you don't need f1.4, I would get an f1.8 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In general, yes (and I did exactly that for the 85mm) - because normally there is a huge price differential between the two; there's hardly one to speak of between the Sigma 24/1.4 Art and the Nikon AF-S 24/1.8. Which leaves optical performance, weight, and the difference in aperture. Nikon seems to have the advantage for the first two - so the question is whether having f/1.4 trumps that (assuming that the build quality isn't all that different despite the difference in weight).</p>

<p>I have the Sigma - Nikon had not released their new 24mm when I purchased. It was the only lens so far that needed AF fine tune on all my bodies (D810, D7100, D700, D300). I'm quite sure I would make the same purchase decision again now. FWIW, I also have the Sigma 35/1.4 Art - purchased instead of the Nikon 28/1.8 (which had been the only new Nikon wide angle prime available at the time).</p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm quite sure I would make the same purchase decision again now. FWIW, I also have the Sigma 35/1.4 Art</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Realizing that this may be apples to oranges, how would you compare your 24mm ART to the 35mm ART? It may be an unfair comparison given the 35mm ART's performance, but is the 24mm in the same ballpark (AF adjustments aside -- and yes I do have the Sigma dock). Like I stated, I do have the 35mm ART and know what that lens can do.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am not entirely sure this still applies today, and it also varies from lens to lens, but typically an f1.4 lens is optimized for wide-open performance. If your typical usage is closing it down to, say f4 or f5.6, you maybe better off getting an f2 lens because it may perform better @ f5.6 than the f1.4 version. In the old days some people would buy a 50mm/f1.4 and a 50mm/f2.8, and they use the f2.8 version if they are shooting at f5.6.</p>

<p>However, that is merely an issue to consider. Any sweeping generalization is likely to be wrong, and lens designs have changed since 30, 40 years ago.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you are talking about a 70-200mm, even though maybe you are using it @ f4 or f5.6 indoors, the f2.8 version will likely have an AF advantage under dim light because it lets more light onto the AF module even though you don't actually shoot @ f2.8. Of course, between f1.4 and 1.8, I don't think letting more light onto the AF module is an issue.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Realizing that this may be apples to oranges</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed it is. Wide open (and until about f/2.8), the borders and corners with the 24 are not as sharp as the ones with the 35. Extreme pixel peeping may reveal some differences in the center sharpness as well - personally, I don't see a difference. The border/corner softness with the 24 seems to some extent due to field curvature and is masked by vignetting (largely irrelevant at any aperture slower than f/2; it appears the Nikon might be at a disadvantage there). Stop the lens down to f/2.8 or more, and the corners are fine and images are as sharp as with the 35mm (at least to my eyes).</p>

<p>Now, when I use the 24mm wide open (or down to f/2), I don't really care about the corner performance (as long as it is not abysmal - which it certainly isn't) - the lack of sharpness may actually be helpful in isolating the subject even more. The field curvature results in the lens "sharpening up" a little when focus is acquired for the borders or corners - those who use focus-and-recompose may want to reconsider that technique when using this lens.</p>

<p>So how does the 24 Art compare to the 35 Art. Stopped down to f/2. 8 and slower, I don't see a difference. Faster than f/2.8 and the 24 can't keep up with the 35 in the borders and corners - while still turning in a performance at f/1.4 better than the old AF 24/2.8 wide open.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, between f1.4 and 1.8, I don't think letting more light onto the AF module is an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think the AF sensor actually sees the difference until the maximum aperture drops below f/2.8.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>The field curvature results in the lens "sharpening up" a little when focus is acquired for the borders or corners - those who use focus-and-recompose may want to reconsider that technique when using this lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hadn't considered that -- good thought. Thanks.</p>

[richard_barron]

<blockquote>

<p>I own Nikon f1.8G lenses (20, 28, 85) and Sigma ART lenses (35,50).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seriously? My only advice would be to go shoot.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously? My only advice would be to go shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seriously. And a few more in addition to those (still probably not even close to what others own). But it's my own money, and if I choose to buy lenses for the sole purpose of fondling them, well, that's my business, no one else's.</p>

<p>Having said that however, <a href="http://www.leonin.net">I do shoot.</a></p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Like Keith, I am also guilty of having a lot of lenses.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, if you already have:</p>

<ul>

<li>a 20mm and a 28mm in Nikon AF-S f1.8</li>

<li>a 35mm and a 50mm in Sigma Art f1.4</li>

</ul>

<p>Perhaps it makes more sense to get a 24mm/f1.4 Art such that you have a pair of lighter 20mm and 28mm as well as a pair of faster, f1.4 24mm and 35mm, such that you can take either pair with you depending on the situation.</p>

<p>However, in case you want to bring everything with you, the weight of so many lenses is going to be substantial, even though each one is small individually.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps it makes more sense to get a 24mm/f1.4 Art such that you have a pair of lighter 20mm and 28mm as well as a pair of faster, f1.4 24mm and 35mm, such that you can take either pair with you depending on the situation.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Shun. I only typically bring 1 or 2 lenses with me on a day-day basis, or 2-3 wide-normal lenses to any destination. What you wrote above is actually one of the major attractions of the 24mm ART lens for me. I guess my research continues.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess my research continues.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or you could just flip a coin...</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>Keith, I enjoyed looking at your portfolio. Nice stuff. I see that you have some infrared imagery. Can you share your technique and equipment for making them?</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Thanks Richard. I captured all of the IR photos on my website with an IR-converted Sony NEX-3 (665nm), converted by Lifepixel. While I still have that body, I recently had Kolari Vision convert my Sony A7R to full spectrum. This allows full spectrum photos (without any filter), 'normal' images with a hot mirror filter, and IR images using appropriate IR filters (I have a 590nm ('goldie') and an 850nm filter for B&W). So, one camera does it all, although I do have to carry a few filters. I do like the full spectrum conversion and having one camera do it all.</p>

<p>The obvious advantage of an IR-converted body is that you can focus and expose normally -- no need for long exposures. Image quality from the full conversion + hot mirror filter look just as good as those form a non-converted body, at least to my eyes and for all practical purposes. I'll post some photos from my A7R when I get a chance.</p>

<p>If you are thinking of getting an IR conversion, I would highly recommend getting a mirrorless body rather than a DSLR. Kolari Vision (http://www.kolarivision.com) can explain the reason far better than I can, but an IR-converted DSLR primarily limits you to the lens that you send in with the body for focus calibration. And yes, I can recommend both Lifepixel and Kolari Vision.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_barron]

<p>I've still got a Kodak DCS 720x in storage, and it was always my hope that its ability to remove the IR filter by taking out just two screws would lend itself to IR imaging. Despite having a set of three opaque IR filters and a deep red filter, no combination delivered the look I wanted, even after extensive editing. It's possible the CMY sensor isn't suited to desirable IR response. Thoughts?<img src="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tree-ir-01.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>The image looks fine (a la impressionist art), but like you said, not what you were after. What specific look were you after? Was the purple fringing intended?<br>

I assume you set a custom WB? That's been a critical first step to converted IR bodies -- make sure you set the white balance correctly. I use a gray card.</p>

<p>You may be right about the sensor not being suited to IR, but it might be worth sending an email to Kolari to get their input. They're usually pretty responsive.</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>I shoot raw files and set a custom white balance. The look I wanted was similar to some of your images, with white foliage and deep skies. I'm not saying I didn't get interesting results, but I wasn't getting the results I had hoped.<br>

That particular camera is notable for its off-the-chart moiré, so no, the purple fringing wasn't deliberate.<br>

Here's another frame from that camera that was full of surprises. The gate is painted deep red and the bush in the background is true green.<img src="http://richardbarron.net/photoblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/lock-ir-01.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Two23]

<p>On D800E I use Nikon 20mm f1.8G, Sigma 35mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4, Nikon 85mm f1.8G. I do have a 24mm lens too. It's the 24mm PC-E. I shoot a lot of architecture and landscape, and the tilt/shift lens is a total no-brainer for me. It allows me to do things I couldn't with the other lenses. The t/s movements are FAR more useful and important to me than f1.4. The lens is one of Nikon's sharpest as well.</p>

<p>I deliberately bought a medium sized camera bag rather than a large one. With 36mp, I really can't justify having one of every lens available. I'm almost exclusively an outdoor photographer and want to limit the amount of stuff I carry around too. My strategy has been to buy only a few lenses I will regularly use, and keep upgrading them to the best possible. For the time being, I don't think I have anything to upgrade to, however.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Quick question. With the lenses you already have why do you need a 24mm? Yes, a 24 sits between the 20 and the 28 but it's redundant. I know this wasn't the question but I had to ask. Photographers usually carry around more stuff than they need. If it's a specialized sense as Kent mentions above, that's different. Anyway, good luck with your photography.</p>