Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D AF  (Read 2863 times)
Frere Jacques
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« on: February 13, 2006, 07:38:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have any experience with this lens?

Thank you in advance!
Logged
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2006, 10:59:25 AM »
ReplyReply

It's an excellent piece of glass.  The AF often seems superfluous on a WA, but when all the other lenses in your kit are AF, it can be frustrating to have one that's not.  

Frankly though, for our general purposes we get a lot more use out of a 20mm than the 24, especially with the crop factor in DSLRs.  If the price was right I wouldn't hesitate to pick it up, but you should recognize that you might eventually want something wider as well.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2006, 11:00:42 AM by Hank » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2006, 12:49:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does anyone have any experience with this lens?

Thank you in advance!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's a very good lens with decent build, and decent optics, including close range correction so it focusses close.

Check out Bjorn Rorslett's reviews, and David Ruether's too.

But the best zooms (17-35 F2.8 AFD, 12-24 F4 AFS ED DX G) are at least as good except perhaps at the near focus. I have the 24mm F2.8 AFD and the 12-24 F4 zoom and my experience matches what others have said.

Leif
Logged
cricketer 1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2006, 08:35:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does anyone have any experience with this lens?

Thank you in advance!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with others.  Before spending money on the 24mm, ask yourself what photo applications you wish to capture as the magnification factor (assuming a digital dslr with a small sensor) of x1.5 or x1.6 will produce a minimum WA of 36mm which is too long for some architectural and landscape shots.  For these you need to be at 11mm or 12mm at the wide end.  I use a Tamron 17-35 Di lens with my D70 and its not wide enough for those shots when I cannot backup.
[/B] Cricketer 1
Logged
Frere Jacques
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2006, 10:05:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the 17-35 -- superior lens! What I am looking for is something a little less, um, conspicuous (Is that a zoom lens in your pocket...ANYWAY...) around 35mm for street shooting. Most people seem to prefer the 20mm. I am hoping Nikon will give us a 35mm/1.4 or 2 DX at PMA...
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2006, 11:46:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I occasionally stick an old manual focus 20/f4.0 on my D2x. Its not like autofocus is needed on a 20. Small lens but the camera is sizewise a monster so discretion is out the window. I keep thinking a d200 would be far more useful when small is better. Waiting for the banding issue to be behind Nikon before plunging in.

The kit lens (18-70) is actually pretty good and smaller than the 17-35/17-55 lenses

Bob
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2006, 11:19:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I like mine.  It's a nice little lens, sharp, unobtrusive, and a nice focal length just for kicking around.  I find that I'm always trying to use it for something, and I often leave the 12-24 home just because I want to use the 24.

Bob: Nikon released a dealy about the banding.  It's been fixed.

Bryan
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 11:21:19 PM by BryanHansel » Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad