24mm/2.8D or 28mm/2.8D - please help!

Three weeks ago I bought a D2x with the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 lens. It’s a fantastic kit but it has one disadvantage: it’s heavy and bulky. Indeed it’s TOO HEAVY to be carried in the backpack during hikes that last more than 2-3 days (I use the camera mainly for landscape photography in the mountains).

So I am considering the purchase of a second small and lightweight lens in order to let the 28-70 at home during long hikes where weight is a problem.

In the Nikon lens catalogue I saw that there are at least two items which could be of some interest for me: the AF 24mm f2.8D and the AF 28mm f2.8D. Has anyone some experience with these two lenses?
Which one should I choose?
Thank you very much in advance for any suggestion.
--
Paolo

Hi paolo , I've had a few 24/2.8 in the past , unfortunately this lens seems to be ,IMO , not very good for DSLR , I tried a few samples as sell as the 28.2.8 , I jsut wouldnt rcomment it to anyone going for Dslr , very soft at 2.8 to 4 (the 28 is even worse -at least wiht the2 samples I tested) gets better at 5.6 -8 yet not fantastice , as you would expect for a prime .

I f you really want top quality primes for Dslr ,then the 35/2 , 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 , are the ones to choose form . For wider I woould only rcomment the sigma and nikon 12-24 , They are much better than the 20, 24 and 28 all in all . BTW I am now using the 28-200G nikon . I stil cant get over its amazing quality especailly at 28 -150 , nice color rendition , very sharp nd puchy . , thats if you can leave wiht its slower glass though
--
avis

It's a metal Bodied older lens which I've used in both Canon and Sigma mounts , Razor sharp edge to edge on the 1DS - same on the SD9 - I've just found a mint boxed one for a collegue in Nikon mount for under £50 ..

these lenses are a bargain and more practical than the massive plastic bucket Sigma 24mm F1.8EX , far better made too..

i've not used the Nikon 24mm F2.8 but the old Sigma beats the Canon version wide open

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

I second Avi's comment about the 24/2.8 not being great for DSLR. I too have been quite disappointed with the results of this lens and the D70.

I have the 20 f/2.8D, 24 f/2.8D and 28 f/2.8D. The 20 f/2.8D is quite small/lightweight and a fantastic lens. Even used it will cost you quite a bit more than the 24. If you're backpacking/hiking and shooting landscapes this is a great lens. If you don't a bit more weight and bulk (but less than the 28-80) get a 12-24. I have the Nikon 12-24DX, a bit pricey. Others seem to like the Tokina, but availabiility seems to be a bit of an issue. The 12-24 tends to flare at the wide side so you need to be careful and the use of the hood is a must.

Paolo Chiti said:

Three weeks ago I bought a D2x with the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 lens.
It’s a fantastic kit but it has one disadvantage: it’s heavy and
bulky. Indeed it’s TOO HEAVY to be carried in the backpack during
hikes that last more than 2-3 days (I use the camera mainly for
landscape photography in the mountains).
So I am considering the purchase of a second small and lightweight
lens in order to let the 28-70 at home during long hikes where
weight is a problem.
In the Nikon lens catalogue I saw that there are at least two items
which could be of some interest for me: the AF 24mm f2.8D and the
AF 28mm f2.8D. Has anyone some experience with these two lenses?
Which one should I choose?
Thank you very much in advance for any suggestion.
--
Paolo

Click to expand...

I've got an incredible 24 f2.8 that does great on my D70. BUT... I had one that was terrible and tried three others that were also bad before finding this one. It was an 8 month quest for a good copy of that lens. I also had a GREAT 28 f2.8. I don't think it's that the wide prime lenses aren't good on the dslr's. I used to think that when I couldn't find a good 24. But I saw the results some others were getting with it so that led me to really understand the reality of sample variation and I just kept looking and trying lenses. I love the 24 I have on there now so much I'm ready to give it name like "Lucille" or something. It's MONSTER sharp.

Good luck.

jammerbirdi said:

I've got an incredible 24 f2.8 that does great on my D70. BUT... I
had one that was terrible and tried three others that were also bad
before finding this one. It was an 8 month quest for a good copy of
that lens. I also had a GREAT 28 f2.8. I don't think it's that the
wide prime lenses aren't good on the dslr's. I used to think that
when I couldn't find a good 24. But I saw the results some others
were getting with it so that led me to really understand the
reality of sample variation and I just kept looking and trying
lenses. I love the 24 I have on there now so much I'm ready to give
it name like "Lucille" or something. It's MONSTER sharp.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Bad shots but pretty indicative of what I'm talking about. These are all f4 or f4.5. Shot from a MOVING CAR, as always, and I mean MOVING. JPEG'd in Nikon View. NO sharpening other than in camera normal. Unfortunately, I didn't compress them enough and the file size is to big. In other words... look now because they're going to be gone in a day or two. The lens takes gorgeous pics, there's no denying it. Sharpest lens I've had on the camera since the 35mm f2.

Paolo,

Have you considered the DX 18-70? Inexpensive, very light, and a sharp little bugger. In my hiking and backpacking experience I find it useful not only to have the wide end but also the ability to zoom to the short telephoto range especially on higher summits when I wish to "pull" the peaks in.
--
Pete Smith

These pics seem very sharp indeed. Thank you very much for posting them!
Paolo

jammerbirdi said:

Bad shots but pretty indicative of what I'm talking about. These
are all f4 or f4.5. Shot from a MOVING CAR, as always, and I mean
MOVING. JPEG'd in Nikon View. NO sharpening other than in camera
normal. Unfortunately, I didn't compress them enough and the file
size is to big. In other words... look now because they're going to
be gone in a day or two. The lens takes gorgeous pics, there's no
denying it. Sharpest lens I've had on the camera since the 35mm f2.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your suggestion Pete. I have just looked this lens up in the Nikon online-catalogue. The wide open end looks quite promising but weight and size are non exactly what I was looking for. The lens which I want to buy should non be heavier than 200-250 g.
--
Paolo

Petes said:

Paolo,

Have you considered the DX 18-70? Inexpensive, very light, and a
sharp little bugger. In my hiking and backpacking experience I
find it useful not only to have the wide end but also the ability
to zoom to the short telephoto range especially on higher summits
when I wish to "pull" the peaks in.
--
Pete Smith

Click to expand...

Paolo Chiti said:

Petes said:

Paolo,

Have you considered the DX 18-70? Inexpensive, very light, and a
sharp little bugger. In my hiking and backpacking experience I
find it useful not only to have the wide end but also the ability
to zoom to the short telephoto range especially on higher summits
when I wish to "pull" the peaks in.
--
Pete Smith

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah see I'm with Paolo. The size and weight of the kit lens is relative and to me it was bigger than I wanted, period. What I wanted from the get go is a lens no bigger than the Nikon wide primes. These zooms, even the small and light ones like the kit or the 18-35 (which I also have, great lens) are HUGE in comparison. The 17- 2.8s. I would love something like that but a 1.5 lb lens? I know the bigger teles can go 7 lbs but I don't want a 1.5 lb lens hanging around my neck. I shoot with ONE hand and holding that up for any time at all would be impossible for me. My hands hurt anyway.

I'm REALLY interested in the new 18-55 DX. It weighs 6 oz and change! lol! Now we're talking. If it's sharp, I'm there. Can't wait to try it out.

Well, you could carry less water to offset the heavier lens...!

My last trek was with the Kodak slr/n and the 24-120 VR, talk about weight.

I find the combo of D100 and DX 18-70 a good compromise although there is nothing like the images from the big Kodak so I opt to suffer a bit on the trail which avoids gnashing of teeth when I want to print 13x19.
--
Pete Smith

I think you're going to find that the 18-70 zoom will be a HUGE improvement on the 28-70 weight and balance-wise -- you see, you're not only dealing with weight with that 28-70 lens, but also with the leverage from the fact that most of that weight is a long way from the camera.

My Tokina 28-70 2.6 is almost as heavy as the Nikkor (not quite) and I certainly would not want anything heavier on my D2H. The Nikkor 28-70 is not only significantly heavier than the Tokina but also significantly longer, and that's kind of a double whammy.

But my 30-year-old 105 2.5, which is just a tiny bit heavier than the 18-70 lens, disappears on the front of the D2H. I would strongly advise the 18-70 as being by far the best choice for what you have in mind; I tried one in the store with the D2H and it is beautifully balanced; it handles every bit as well as my 105. Trust me on this -- the 15 ounces this lens weighs feels a LOT lighter compared to the Tokina's 26 or 27 ounces (I just looked up the specs on the web to make sure) than the difference in weight would suggest, and that is because the weight on these lighter lenses is not only less but much closer to the camera.

If that still isn't enough weight saved for you, then I'd suggest a 24 2.8 or 28 2.8. But with the 28 you need to be careful what version you're getting because the design has changed repeatedly. The AIS version, the last manual focus one, is amazing, the best of the bunch. The Series E and non-D autofocus ones are appalling. If you get a D autofocus one, buy new if possible because the early Ds were like the Series E, but the newer ones have an extra element (six instead of five) and that helps some. I can attest to the AIS and Series E versions; I have not personally tried the newer six element D version.

I needed something wider than my 50mm 1.8 but faster than the kit lens so I thought I'd give the 28mm/2.8 a shot. Given that there have been largely poor reviews of this lens, I've found that it's a matter of technique. Granted I wouldn't have purchased the lens if it was over $100, but I got it for a steal. Anyhow, here's a recent shot I took with it, cropping and resizing for the web, but otherwise no pp work done to it. While it's not a pro lens by any means, it can deliver good results at a fairly wide angle.

Daniel, thank you very much for your opinion. I am afraid that the 18-70 is not light enough for my purposes. For this reason I think that I will go for the 24 mm f2.8. I have also posted a similar thread on the italian Nikon forum and after reading all the answers I received in this forum and in the italian forum, I think that the 24 mm f2.8 will deliver quite good results.
--
Paolo

I have both the Nikon 24mm AF-D and Nikon 20mm AF-D.

Optically I find the 20mm to be the better of the two - and by a large margin actually. I only use my 24mm at f/8 to get decent results.

There have been a few threads regarding the 24mm lately. Do a search and you'll quickly discover, that more people here at DPreview tempt to favor the 20mm compared to the 24mm on a digital body.

With kind regards
Aarhus, Denmark

I have a problem with this statement. I have used the series E 28 2.8 and found the images to be quite acceptable and no worse than the 18-70 at 28mm.
Appalling is probably too strong a word, IMHO.

This one shows good color and sharpness, especially the coloring on the benches from the setting sun.
Jim

Daniel Bliss said:

The Series E and non-D autofocus ones are appalling.
If you get a D autofocus one, buy new if possible because the early
Ds were like the Series E, but the newer ones have an extra element
(six instead of five) and that helps some. I can attest to the AIS
and Series E versions; I have not personally tried the newer six
element D version.

Click to expand...