AiS 28/2 or 24/2?

[kzphoto]

Not being too savvy on the Nikon primes, I thought if throw this question to the more knowledgable folks here: which lens shoots better? IE sharpness, contrast wide open, overall performance.

I've read great things about the 28/2.8 and the 24/2.8 but if you wantEd a manual focus f/2 wide in the Nikon lens stable, where would you aim? And why?

 

[Riverman]

I didn't know there was a 28f2 so went for the 24. I prefer the 24 focal length in any case.

 

[Lflex]

This is always a good resource:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html

Caution! I see at least one significant error (it states that all 28/2.8 AF are 5 element). That is wrong;the 28/2.8 AFD has 6 elements and while not stellar, it shows a excellent relationship btwn price and performance.

I know it is not the lens in OP's is inquring about but there may be other errors.

 

[kzphoto]

That naturfotograf guy loves his 28/2. Maybe I'll give it a whirl.

 

[rxmd]

Not being too savvy on the Nikon primes, I thought if throw this question to the more knowledgable folks here: which lens shoots better? IE sharpness, contrast wide open, overall performance.

I've read great things about the 28/2.8 and the 24/2.8 but if you wantEd a manual focus f/2 wide in the Nikon lens stable, where would you aim? And why?

Well why don't you look at what focal length you like better from a, you know, visual point of view? The sharpest, most contrasty, creamiest-bokeh lens in the world won't help you nothing if you like other focal lengths better.

A 24 is a 24, an 28 is a 28. That difference is much more important than whatever marginal differences in sharpness or contrast are there or what the personal preferences of a Norwegian guy on the Internet are.

 

[kanzlr]

+1, rxmd 🙂

 

[Noserider]

I have both, and have used both Extensively, along with the 2.8 versions of both, Ais in 28 and K/Ai in 24 (but used to use both Ais and AF 24's) so I can tell you:
The 28 f/2 is a better lens than the 24 f/2. Great sharpness in middle apertures, pretty darn good performance wide open, getting exceptional with just a smidge of a stop down and improving rapidly from there, at f/8-11 its as good a wide angle as you'll ever need (only barely exceeded at this range by the Ais 28 2.8 which is saying somthing). Flare resistance in backlit situations is an eye-opener, especially if you're coming off of a common wide zoom.
The 24 f/2 is not a bad lens, it has its own character. Close in/wide open looks quite interesting, and mid-distance is pretty good too. Stop it down and it behaves ok, certainly decent as a wide, but the 24 f/2.8 at the same stops is better especially at mid to far distances, which is how I mostly use my 24's now.
It depends on if you like to shoot or want to shoot at either 24 or 28. If you need and will use f/2 and can deal with the 28 then the 28 f/2 is the one to get. If you simply Must shoot 24 (and I know....I really like the 24 look) and need (really Need) f/2 and can settle with the character and challenges, then the 24 f/2 is the way to go. Its a neat lens, but I more often take a 28 f/2 out ( I did tonight, although my shooting partner took a fancy to it and shot most of the night).

 

[kzphoto]

My choice in focal length is largely decided by which camera I like to grab on a given day. I might grab a Ricoh GR1 or a Leica with a 28. Same goes for the 24. I have a few choices. I shoot 24 and 28 lenses frequently. However, I don't own a 24 or 28 in a Nikon mount. I am not beholden to any one focal length. I grab whatever feels right, looks best or will work within my needs.

Hence, the technical questions. 28/2 or 24/2?

 

[Noserider]

Well, Technically I think the 28 is a better lens. Technically, its sharper, has lower vignetting, is better in back lit, better wide open.
But, you may just like the 24 with the sharp center, stronger vignetting, more back-lit flare and ghosting. I do, which is why I shoot both.
The answer is obvious to me:
Technically, you should have both. 🙂
If I had to choose one, based on Technical criteria, I would choose the 28. No doubt.
The 24 f/2 is an interesting lens, but I probably wouldn't replace it, in fact I had 2 and kept the better one. 28 f/2 would # 2 or 3 on the list if I ever had to rebuild a Nikkor system, and in fact I have a backup for the 28 I think its that important to my work.
If you can, try both at the same time and see how the behave in your style of shooting. If you want the Technically Best 28 for MF Nikkors then get the 28mm 2.8 Ais and put it on a tripod at f/8 and be done with it. Technically, the f/2 and f/2.8 are really very close in the performance you outlined above, the optical formulas are quite similar and IMO the 2.8 is a slower but sharper f/2 that focusses closer and is cheaper. SO, if you need the stop and need the technically Better lens between the 24 and 28, the answer is the 28.

 

[bigeye]

Most nikon fixed wide lenses seem pretty similar to me, like the same guy designed them all. My eyes prefer RF lenses wide, but use what you've got.

The 28/2.8 AI-s and 1.4 are probably "The Best of the Web" in the 24/28 range.

I have the 24/2.8, which is average and "Not the Best of the Web". I like the focal length though, and don't mind using my feet. I'd be happy with the 20mm, too.

Most of my wide and ultra-wide shots are at f8 or above and they all come out about the same at those apertures.

- Charlie

 

[BobYIL]

My experiences confirm Noserider's comments.. I used the 28/3.5, 28/2.8 AI-S and 28/2 AI, all on film Nikons. I chose the 28/2 to stay in my bag. As for the 24mm, in case you opt for this FL, then get the 24/2.8 AI or newer ones. Being sharper than the 24/2 it was my favorite 24mm for two decades.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I have the 28/2.8 AiS and a 24/2 Ai, when I am in an interior space, I tend to choose the 24, just because it is that much faster. You do get some chromatic aberration from the 24, used wide open, though. And the Nikon D3 and D700 are good enough at high ISO's that the loss of a stop probably doesn't make as much of a difference as it did in the days of 400 speed film. I recently bought a 28/2, but I don't have a good sense of it yet. IMHO the 24 is the beginning of the wide-wides.

 

[skahde]

The 2/28mm Nikkor is as good as the wide Nikkors get. I found Björn Rörsletts comments to be spot on, especially with respect to the flare resistance and my sample is from about 1974 and doesn't even feature the latest coating. I could compare it to the OM 2/28mm the Zuikoholics rave about and the Zuiko has a very slight edge in the center but the Nikkor is a whole lot better at the borders even by mid apertures. 😀

If it was my choice I'd go with it and supplement it with a 20mm for the occasions where I need really wide.