84 of 87 people found the following review helpful
on July 8, 2003
It is sharp, it is light, it is wide-angle.
24mm is a ideal compromise (between 20mm and 28mm). Wider than this becomes quite distorted, longer than this limits your view. It is ideal for landscapes if you want to include an interesting foreground. It is also a solid lens, and I am happy with the built-quality. The lens is certainly fast enough for me. On top of that, the optical quality is excellent - perfect for enlargements or slide projection. Good contrast, good colour.
Apart from that, the lens is small and lightweight, which again makes it fantastic for outdoor photographers. I love mine.
60 of 61 people found the following review helpful
on August 17, 2008
When used on a Nikon D300 that applies a 1.5 multiplying factor to the length (this 24mm acts like a 36mm on a DX sensor), this lens is clear, collects lights well, and is extremely sharp. This is a great walk-around lens for scenery, touring, quick crowd shots, and snapshots. With this lens, if you can get the shot quickly and in focus, you will have something that can be easily edited (expecially cropped) in a photo-editing program. Highly recommended as a basic "on the camera all the time" lens.
Updated December 2009. Now used on a Nikon D700 full frame (FX) camera for a year. In this case the lens is a true 24mm unlike on the Nikon D300. Scenery is exquisite, and the lens is incredibly useful for pictures of large groups of people like some recent holiday shots of about 25 people working on cooking on a kitchen center island, or two-dozen kids sitting at a table while the candles get blown out. On an FX camera the lens is sharp, collects light well, is virtually always in focus as you would expect from a 24mm. You can get all the action in the picture without being too far away and if you get too much in, it is simple to crop the pictures. In addition to scenery outside, this lens is awesome for large groups of people where you either want to get many in the picture or you have to be up close because it is a party or historical site or museum. Why haul a 14-24mm zoom when this lightweight but solid lens has 90% of the functionality.
Updated February 2010. I do not use this lens on a daily basis. In fact I do not even use it every week. But, in spite of this, it is a lens I would never want to part with (I am pruning some of my current lenses to make room for a new purchase) even if it is not the lens used daily. When you want to take "place" pictures and get the big picture, this is the one that will get the shot and is light enough so that you still enjoy the location without backache. Landscape shots with it from Grand Teton and Yellowstone Parks capture the "hugeness" you feel in those places with clarity, color trueness, and lack of distortion. And the lens fits in the pocket of pants (without too much of a bulge). Carry this little gem and get the big picture. Works great for cityscapes too.
79 of 82 people found the following review helpful
This autofocusing 24mm f2.8 Nikkor lens is optically unchanged from the manual focusing 24mm f2.8 Nikkor lens that I once owned. This speaks rather well for this design, which was the first ever made with Nikon's CRC (floating element) feature. It certainly is one of the best 24mm lenses available, with fine contrast and resolution. Its performance is almost as good as the venerable Contax Carl Zeiss T* 25mm f2.8 Distagon which I own now; itself another excellent lens design which also dates from the late 1960s. If you tend to photograph a lot of landscapes or need to cover a moderate amount of interior space without excessive distortion, then this will be an excellent lens to add to your Nikon autofocus SLR system. Since this is a Nikon AI-S lens, it will also work too with any manual focusing Nikon camera dating as far back as the venerable Nikon F2A and Nikkormat FT3.
58 of 62 people found the following review helpful
on April 15, 2005
The 24mm f/2.8 is an outstanding performer. Sharp, good contrast, fast autofocus.
On a digital SLR such as the D70 or D2x, the 24mm lens gives you the same degree of coverage as a 35mm lens on a film camera. This makes the 24mm a ideal "normal" lens and great for walk-abouts.
Why not use a zoom for a walk-about? Size and complexity, that's why. The 24mm is quite compact and keeps the bulk and weight of the D70 at a minimum, perfect for carrying all day while shopping, sight-seeing, or visiting the zoo with the kids. I have been a Nikon user for 40 years and have always chosen smaller bodies to keep the bulk at a minimum.
Trust me, you will love this lens.
33 of 35 people found the following review helpful
on December 8, 2006
For a prime lens, this medium wide angle lens produces sharp images between f/5.6 - f/11. I would not recommend going beyond f/11 for the CA starts looking more and more apparent on print. Other than that, it's a sufficient wide angle prime lens and definitely produces very sharp images. I wish it was faster with a max aperture of f/2.0 or f/1.8 for more low light photography capabilities, but overall, it's a fine and dandy lens. I've always been a prime lens guy because I have not come across too many zoom lens (unless they were almost $1000 or more) which produce the same quality of images. Definitely the 24mm f/2.8d is worth it. Despite f/2.8 being the largest aperture, it's still a decent lens.
33 of 37 people found the following review helpful
on August 2, 2008
I have a slightly older version of this lens (pre D), but the important point I want to make is the same: This is a great prime lens for events and general shooting on a cropped DSLR. On a D70 (what I have) it acts like a 36mm with the crop factor. It is wide enough to take shots of groups but not so wide that you can't get a nice portrait.
But, this is for people like me who prefer prime lenses, most people will be much happier with a zoom, like the 18-55mm VR. The prime lens lets more light in so you can shoot without a flash more often. But, if you are going to shoot with a good flash like the SB-600, you will be better off with the flexibility of a zoom.
These AF lenses will not auto focus on a D40 or D60. They will auto focus on the D50, D70, D80, as well as the higher end pro models.
18 of 20 people found the following review helpful
on April 18, 2010
My lens collection consisted of the AF 50mm f1.4, AF 85mm f1.8, AF 80-200 f2.8, 60mm f2.8 Micro SWM and the 18-55mm SWM kit lens which came along with my Nikon D40X.
I have been waiting for some time for an update to the Nikon wide primes. The idea being that newer versions would come with SWM and thus be more convenient for use with my D40X. Eventually Nikon produced a new 24mm lens with SWM at f1.4 - and a $2200 price tag.
So I decided to take the plunge and purchase the older Nikon AF 24mm f2.8 and Nikon AF 35mm F2 - at a total cost of circa $720 based on the idea that lens technology hasn't changed a great deal, unlike camera technology, over the years.
During the weekend I spent some time comparing the 24mm, 35mm and 50 mm AF lenses against the kit SWM 18-55mm lens (non VR version but I understand that the optics are the same as the newer VR version). The 18-55mm kit lens is supposed to be 'good' for a kit lens but I've never been completely happy with it - the results were not always convincing.
Using the AF lenses with the D40X (or I guess any Nikon SLR without a built in lens focus drive - i.e. those 'below' the D90) is very simple. As there's no focus drive in the body one does not have to decouple the drive and thus one can simply attach the AF lens. If one reads the manual it mentions that for manual focusing one should set the AF focus option to manual but this is not necessary with the AF lenses and if one switches back to a SWM lens then one has to remember to 'reactivate' the autofocus - so it's best to avoid this.
Focusing with the AF lenses is accomplished simply by half depressing the shutter release button and focusing manually - the green 'focus' light in the viewfinder will then indicate that the correct focus has been achieved.
Frankly the 18-55 lens is blown away by the 24, 35 and 50mm AF lenses. Centre sharpness is outstanding and edge sharpness not far behind (expected for an FX lens on a DX camera). Pictures are simply a cut above the 18-55mm. Saturation is more 'natural' too.
If I were to rank these lenses vs. the 18-55 then my order would be:
24=35 > 50 f1.4 >> 18-55.
Although non of these lenses, 24, 35 or 50, have the latest technology they are a well worthwhile upgrade over the kit lens.
The 50mm f1.8 I understand is a better (and cheaper) lens than the f1.4 version so if you don't need the wider aperture then the 50mm f1.8 makes sense.
I give both the 24 f2.8 and 35mm f2 a 4.5 rating, the 50mm f1.4 a 4. I guess that adding nano coating and other new technology could improve these lenses further - but not much. Hence I doubt that newer lens technology would add 0.5 to the rating of already exceptional lenses
If one doesn't mind , changing lenses and manual focus (bearing in mind that these lenses would be used for stationary objects anyway) and one may well upgrade to a body with built in focus drive in the future then these lenses are absolute gems and well worth purchasing - especially at the price.
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful
on June 5, 2007
I have three nikon primes: 50, 35, & 24. they're all great, but I prefer this lens because I use manual focus quite a lot, & it focuses much more smoothly. with the 35 & 50, there is a slight feeling of the gears rotating inside the lens (not just my copies -- I tested it on a friend's copy of the 35 & 50). with the 24, I don't get that feeling -- it's perfectly smooth -- perhaps because of the heavier & more complex lens elements.
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on April 17, 2010
This lens is tack sharp, has great bokeh, and very decent low-light performance. Image quality is right on par with the pro-grade 14-24 2.8 zoom; and dollar for dollar, I'd say this lens holds its own very well against anything you want to compare.
I find myself using this one as a walk-around lens on my D90 more often than not. If you're ok with using a prime lens and having to move around more to get your compositions correct, I would highly recommend this lens!
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
on January 20, 2014
Yes, it can't open up to f/1.4 but at 2.8, it's just as sharp, perhaps shaper than the newer 1.4, and far less expensive. $394 or $2,199? I'll take the older D 2.8 over that $2,199 price tag any day. It's a great lens for just about everything and it produces very sharp images even at 2.8. This lens lives on my camera every day when I'm not shooting a gig. When it comes to gig'ing it's well served for wide environmental portraits, group shots, street photography, and situations where you just need to get more bang out of your depth of field (remember wider focal lengths give you deeper DOF for a given aperture vs. longer focal lengths, if this doesn't make sense to you google DOF master and play with the numbers).
Obviously it lacks a focus motor, which is overrated (but of course this lens will not work on bodies without a focus motor), and it lacks the nano crystal coat of the newer 1.4 G, meaning you might get some lens flare, but so what, people actually edit lens flare into their photos now for that Instagram feel.
If you know what your doing you can save your money and buy this, and live happily ever after with your remaining $1,805 you saved by not buying the 1.4 G. If you need those extra stops, just put a flash on your camera.