Nikkor 24mm f2 AIS or Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS

Bill58 said:
I agree 100%. I've got the 2.8 version on FILM Nikons and am very happy w/ it. Just use faster film if you need an extra stop. BTW--the 24 makes a better/ deeper snap shooter on the street in hyperfocal setting. No focus-shoot.
Click to expand...

I own and love the 24/2.0 AIS, but I have no experiance with the 28. IMHO 28 is too close to 35 and going to a 24 means I'm shooting an ultra-wide and not just a wide-angle. Part of the character of an ultra-wide is the distortion. I guess this is where I draw the line and define a 28 as a wide-ange and 24 as an ultrawide.

The 24/2.0 displays crisp contrast in B&W film.

85-90% of the time, I shoot at 5.6, meter off the back of my hand, and use the distance scale as a point and shoot. My rig is a F3 with a DA-2 sport finder and an AH-4 hand strap. This is a great quick shooter for steet and on the subway I can shoot from the chest if I'm standing.

The CRC allows focus as close as one-foot. An ultra-wide, focused close at F 2.0 is an interesting look, but this is only used about 10% of the time.

Basically I only use two F-stops with this lens, but I use it a lot like a rangefinder. I call this rig my "Street Machine." It is very easy to shoot a roll of film, but you have to get close. In NYC this is not a problem. At 5.6 I have sharp focus from 5 feet to infinity. When I raise the camera to my eye I just grab the shot. I'm not so sure a 28 would be as effective.

Calzone
 
Had the 28mm ais with close focus when I had D300, was sharp, almost too sharp form close to about 3,5 meters, a bit more boring at infinity, it felt like it lost something at infinity. Took some photos of a friend of mine late summer while having some coffee, and she did not allow me to use the photos. I could see that she had a busy morning, you could see the mascara was uneven :) And the photos was sharp.
Was not the same fun on the D700, might be because i got a 35mm ais 1.4 by then .. , might be ;D
 
I just picked up a mint condition Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS. I will try to shoot with them both this weekend. But either way I think the 24mm F2 will be sold.
 
I have had lenses on both sizes but not Nikkors ...yet

I guess it depends on what you photograph, I found the 28mm wasn't wide enough for me and the 24mm was just perfect ...but a 20mm would have been the best.

Also what other lenses do you carry...28mm and 50mm might be ok or 20mm and 35mm or even 24mm and 100mm which is what i ended up with

It's a tough choice and i recommend you don't sell either until you are really really sure

:)
 
Lol, these threads go in all directions, you can pick advices any way you like :) Anyway, I agree with the consensus that the 28/2.8 is brilliant. It's the best optic I've ever shot with, only challenged by the 40 Summicron-C.
 
bgb said:
I have had lenses on both sizes but not Nikkors ...yet

I guess it depends on what you photograph, I found the 28mm wasn't wide enough for me and the 24mm was just perfect ...but a 20mm would have been the best.

Also what other lenses do you carry...28mm and 50mm might be ok or 20mm and 35mm or even 24mm and 100mm which is what i ended up with

It's a tough choice and i recommend you don't sell either until you are really really sure

:)
Click to expand...

This lens is something I will use for architecture shots when travelling. Maybe a parade here and there. The other lenses I carry or have are a 35mm f2, 50mm f1.2, 50mm f1.8 and a 105mm f2.5 All are Nikon AIS lenses. So for wide angle, I am thinking of just keeping the 28mm f2.8. Also I want to cut down to just a 28mm, 50mm and the 105mm for the SLR. So, I will get rid of the 35mm f2 more than likely as well. I will always keep a 35mm on my rangefinder.
 
braver said:
Lol, these threads go in all directions, you can pick advices any way you like :) Anyway, I agree with the consensus that the 28/2.8 is brilliant. It's the best optic I've ever shot with, only challenged by the 40 Summicron-C.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The other 28's I have for comparison are the 28mm f2.8 G-mount for the Contax, Konica 28mm f2.8 M-mount and Nikon 28mm f3.5 S-mount. 28mm has usually been my widest prime lens. 90% of the time, its been enough for me.
 
lawrence said:
Would be interested in hearing your verdict on how you like the 28mm v. your current 24mm.
Click to expand...

I will try to do some comparisons tomorrow. I will let you know. The guy I bought the 28mm from was practically begging for me to call him if I sell the 24mm.
 
I have both lenses.

I use the 24mm f/2 on an APS-sized digital SLR with a 35mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8.

I use the 28mm f/2.8 on a 35mm film SLR with a 50mm f/1.4 and a 105mm f/2.5.

Rarely do I carry the 24mm and the 28mm at the same time.
 
The 28/2.8 AIs is a ROCKING lenses, no distortion, focuses close, you would think Pres K from CV did it. It is one of the classic Nikkors.

If you really want to cut down, leave the 50 and the 105 at home and pick up a 85/1.8 (best 85 SLR lens they made IMHO). For architecture I'd look into a 15/4.5 CV in F mount. If the body you have has mirror lock up it ROCKS. Another option is to get it in LTM and a Bessa L or M and use it on your Leica. 15 - 28 - 85, a great three lens kit.

B2 (;->
 
You guys think 28mm 2.8 is great, you obviously haven't tried 28mm 1.4 :) No need to search, that lens is hard to find and costs a fortune. I don't own it, but have tried it on several occasions and yes it is good! Very good.

(The new 24mm 1.4 is also very good, but you obviously loose aperture ring, which is OK if you plan to shoot digital only. Will be out on sale in just a couple of weeks (for those who can afford it)).
 
That's correct JSU, basically Gs will work with any body that can control aperture. Otherwise you'll have to stop down and the lens loses any versatility.

That 28mm doesn't only have f/1.4 driving the price up. It attained sort of a cult status. It was produced in comparatively limited numbers and was discontinued too soon because it contained some materials (forgot which) that got banned in most of the countries. Since then the price was going up up up. Currently a minty one goes for around $2,500 - 3,000 in my neck of woods.

The new 24 f/1.4G also costs around $2,000 recommended street price, yet to be released so we'll see. I've shot a few frames with it and I must say it's one of those pieces of glass that makes me salivate. Resolution and rendition are simply outstanding! Bokeh creamy smooth. It's not for everyone, but the pros will definitely enjoy its qualities.
 
I have the 24 mm 2.0. with my film cameras it is very handy to have, but I mainly bought to use as a 35 mm FOV on my Nikon D7000. There it is really amazing. I almost always hyper-focus so it works faster than any auto-focus. Great for events.
 
To the original question, choosing one of the two lenses cited, I would decide almost exclusively based on which focal length I prefer to work with. Small differences in image quality, lens speed etc. are irrelevant compared to focal length which is really an extension of how you see and formulate the image.
 
I've owned all three lenses in question. I found the performance of the 24/2 less than stellar at the wider apertures. I use the 24/2.8 now. The 28/2.8 may go along just in case the 24 is too wide. Or, I may leave it home and bring the 28/3.5 PC lens (which always goes with me when doing serious shooting with my Nikons. Between the 28/2.8 and the 24/2.8, it's a no-brainer: I find no practical difference in performance of those two, while I consider 24mm an indispensable focal length!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom