Nikkor 24mm 1:2 OR Nikkor 24mm 1:2.8 -- BUT: Heavily Used!

[Sumarongi]

Nikkor 24mm 1:2 OR Nikkor 24mm 1:2.8 -- BUT: Heavily Used!

I've been offered these two lenses, for a song presumably, but I'm a bit reluctant since both are heavily used:

Nikkor 24mm 1:2




Nikkor 24mm 1:2.8




What is your recommendation?

edit: and why, if your answer is *none*?

edit2: I'm not a Nikon shooter, especially I'm not a Nikon-digital shooter. (If I would be a real left-handed person, I guess Nikon would be my natural choice; but I'm predominantly right-handed, and I prefer the rotational direction of the Leica-Minolta-Canon controls 😱)

So far the only one in my family shooting Nikon film SLR is my mother in law, and her F2 is permanently armed with a Nikkor 85mm f/2.0 that I once found secondhand and gave her as a present 🙂

BUT: I'm planning to give my daughter for her 10th birthday a Nikon FM10, and a very small selection of lenses, two or three. She's predominantly left-handed, and so I guess the rotational direction of Nikkors is perfect for her 🙂

 

[Sumarongi]

Why *none*, dear Deardorff38?

 

[mod2001]

have you ckecked here? http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html. Looks lika an easy decision at least for him (2.8)

Juergen

 

[p.giannakis]

If they are cheap, get both. I got a Nikkor 28 f/2.8 AIS which is beaten to death and it still shoots great pictures.

Here is my lens and some pics taken with it.

http://pansfilmcameras.blogspot.com/2016/10/scratched-vs-unscratched-lens.html

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I've got two versions, non-AI and AI. I use them on my A7ii, mostly shooting cars. Both are sharp as a tack when I focus them correctly. I'm leaning more towards the AI since it does weigh a tad less than the older lens. Both are 2.8's.
I like them because they allow me to get pictures in close circumstances and don't have a lot of distortion in the shots, even being close.
I bought the non-AI here on this forum and the latest AI purchase was off the GW auction site. I got lucky both times as the glass is nice on both of them.

 

[al1966]

Ill second the get both see which one you prefer then sell the other on or if its really cheap and they show different advantages keep both. It's always worth having lenses of the same FL that offer a difference be it rendering colour shift or weight if you like the output of each.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I love my Nikon F but use it so seldom, I have no need to add other lenses.... I'd be happy with the 2.8... used one for years

 

[madNbad]

The original 24 2.8 introduced in the late 1960s' was the first to use the floating element to reduce distortion at close distances. If its' a bargain, get the 2.8. Need to exercise the shutter on the F a few times a year anyway.

 

[Ronald M]

Worn well = good lens when that old.

Get both. Keep one or two.

Neither will have good corners on FX digital until 5.6 to 8. Film is fine Both will work on DX digital.

 

[Contarama]

I would wager the 2.8 will outperform the 2 but if they're both cheap get both.

I wouldn't worry so much about the well used status. With Nikkor a lot of times the wear just means it is a good performer copy that was used often.

 

[Larry H-L]

I prefer the f2.8, it does have a vignetted look sometimes, but is overall a great lens.

The f2 gives a more even looking exposure in the corners, but I find it very difficult to focus properly.

 

[peterm1]

I would wager the 2.8 will outperform the 2 but if they're both cheap get both.

I wouldn't worry so much about the well used status. With Nikkor a lot of times the wear just means it is a good performer copy that was used often.

While usually I agree that slower lenses tend to perform better I am not so sure this is always the case.

For example the 28mm f2 Nikkor is better than all versions of the 28mm f2.8 except the AIS one which is regarded as being a significant improvement on earlier models.

I do not know if this is so with the 24mm however as I only have an early pre ai (AI converted) f2.8 version. Which I have no complaints about. But I cannot make the comparison. I simply mention it because sometimes what one expects is not what one finds (and I agree that your assumption about the relative merits of he two would normally be the right one).

EDIT: I just found this thread which seems to suggest you are right in that the f2.8 looks like the better performing 24mm

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/nikon-24mm-f2-ais-vs-nikon-24mm-f2-8.81024/

 

[Contarama]

It's pretty common knowledge Peter.

BTW the older 24/2.8 is a highly regarded street lens in some circles.

The 28s are different. The 2 is great the 2.8 is sublime and even the slow 3.5 punches very hard. The 2.8 still available brand new I believe.

I've never shot the 28/1.4 afd and it is probably the only thing af that would interest me.

 

[peterm1]

It's pretty common knowledge Peter.

BTW the older 24/2.8 is a highly regarded street lens in some circles.

The 28s are different. The 2 is great the 2.8 is sublime and even the slow 3.5 punches very hard. The 2.8 still available brand new I believe.

I've never shot the 28/1.4 afd and it is probably the only thing af that would interest me.

Apparently not common knowledge to me.... 🙂

But then again what I don't know would confound Google's ability to cope with the volume.

 

[Contarama]

The 24/2 will bring more coin because people will think speed will make them better but the 2.8 is the gem. 24 is a difficult focal length to build and with fast ones you have to make compromises. Didn't work out with the 24.

 

[shimokita]

I already had the AI'ed Nikkor-H 2.8cm f/3.5 so I went with the wider AI-S 20 f/2.8 which works for me... shooting with the Nikon F3P body.

 

[presspass]

I have a pre-ai 2.8 and an unrepairable 2.0 ais that's been in a drawer for four years. The 2.8 produces great results; as I remember, the 2.0 did as well. The older, more flare-prone lenses give me the contrast I like for wet printing, so I probably won't replace the 2.0.

 

[Sumarongi]

——I've added some more informative things in the first post that I've forgotten to mention 😱 ——

Thank yor all for your statements!
-- So far I guess I should buy both 😉

 

[Contarama]

——I've added some more informative things in the first post that I've forgotten to mention 😱 ——

Thank yor all for your statements!
-- So far I guess I should buy both 😉

With that many Nikon blocks amongst the family the answer is indeed get both...yeah they made a million but they aren't losing value bro

A FM10 with a pancake fast fifty would be deluxe. The 35/2 is powerful

 

[Sumarongi]

If they are cheap, get both. I got a Nikkor 28 f/2.8 AIS which is beaten to death and it still shoots great pictures.

Here is my lens and some pics taken with it.

http://pansfilmcameras.blogspot.com/2016/10/scratched-vs-unscratched-lens.html

Thank you 🙂
I was always thinking that "a scratched lens will produce useless pictures"-story is a myth, probably invented by the "protection UV filter" industry and their shills 😉

Anyways, *I* like pictures that look a bit *dreamy* very much (yes, landscape wide angle pictures too), so if there is such an effect -- whether from the lens formula itself, or the scratches -- *I* wouldn't dislike it 😉