Nikon 24mm f2.8D v 24mm f1.8G

[rpps]

Just would like to know if the newer Nikon 24mm f1.8G is any better image quality wise than the 24 f2.8D. I can buy the 24 1.8G seconhand but it's still a lot of money $A700 .

I know it's a faster lens but that doesn't worry me as I shoot mai ly f5.6 and above on my D750. I want a couple of good prime lenses for when I want to travel light and take my heavy Tamron 24-70mm . I already hsve the 35mm f1.8g.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Just would like to know if the newer Nikon 24mm f1.8G is any better image quality wise than the 24 f2.8D. I can buy the 24 1.8G seconhand but it's still a lot of money $A700 .

I know it's a faster lens but that doesn't worry me as I shoot mainly f5.6 and above on my D750. I want a couple of good prime lenses for when I want to travel light and take my heavy Tamron 24-70mm . I already hsve the 35mm f1.8g.

I guess you mean not take your 24-70. The 24mm f/2.8D is a pretty poor lens. It is small but doesn't clear up in the corners until f/8 or so. The 24mm f/1.8G is, like the rest of that series, a very competent lens. It's like your 35 only wider.

 

[mbecke]

The old Nikon 24 f2.8d is an ok lens. It really needs to be stopped down before it gets sharp towards the corners. Colors are good; quite rich. However, I tend to use my 14-24 2.8 zoom lens before I consider using the 24f2.8d. The 14-24 zoom at 24mm is great! I do not own, nor have ever used, the modern 24 f1.8G but it is likely to be superior overall; certainly sharper wide open or close to wide open than is the older f2.8d lens. Admittedly, this involves some speculation on my part, however. Since my 14-24 zoom is so good, I am unlikely to ever purchase the modern 20mm and 24mm lenses. Something to consider doing also.

 

[mrgs1]

It was good in it's time, but times and technology have moved on. The 1.8G is superior for me.

 

[rpps]

Thanks everyone I will try it on my camera tomorrow and take a few test shots and view them on my CP when I get home .If it's OK with no alignment problems.

I just finished editing some quick shots taken today with the 24D, it wasn't great light with a lot of cloud but I was pretty impressed the the image quality even at f2.8 it wasn't that bad just the borders a little soft. These borders start to sharpen up around f4-f5.6 and at f8 the image is pretty sharp all over the frame. Maybe I will get better from the 24G but it's a $700 question.

 

[doonie]

My reply won't be of any use to you for the sake of comparison as I've never used the 1.8 G. Personally, I have no use for a fast WA as I no longer shoot weddings. I love the 24 D for it's small size and light weight. If I'm out with a long lens I can throw the 24 in a pocket. I've often thought about upgrading to the 1.8 just because I hear it's better, but am I really missing anything for my purposes ? As you mentioned, if you or I are using the lens at f5.6 or f8 anyways, why spend the $$ ?

When I'm out birding I carry the 24 in a pocket just in case

 

[mbecke]

Excellent point as to its size and weight (24mm f2.8D). That is why I originally purchased mine. Easy to carry around and use as needed. Same with the 28 f2.8D. There is definitely a time and place for compact, light weight lenses, even if you may sacrifice a bit of quality. And usually, it’s just a bit. Also, think about Nikons great little 28-200 compact zoom. Love that sharp, little zoom lens!

 

[anotherMike]

Oh, there's no doubt at all the 24/1.8G is better, a lot better. Whether that "better" matters to you, not sure I could answer that one. Depends on your intended use, your output (and size of), and what your standards for image quality are.

Let's put it into context though. I had a 24/2.8 AFD long ago, went through a couple actually, and the last one I had was pretty amazing on film. When I switched to digital in mid 2003, with the D100, it didn't perform so well. So if the lens didn't perform so well on a lowly 6mp DX crop camera, it shouldn't be a shock that a modern lens designed in the digital era is a lot better. 24mm is a key, critical focal length for me for my landscape work, so I've been through a lot of lenses. In terms of everything I've owned over the years, the 17-35/2.8 was better at 24, the 14-24 better than that, the 16-35 about the same (at 24), the 24/1.4G a lot better, the 18-35G better, the Sigma 24/1.4 Art a lot better, the Nikon 24/1.8G a lot better, and my current reference, the Zeiss 25/1.4 Milvus, is substantially better. Yep - owned all of them. So out of all those lenses, the old AFD that I loved so much on film, these days, sits in last place. But I'm picky.

Now, that doesn't mean it's worthless to you. If you're willing to accept its not great wide open or anywhere near it, will have issues with the edges/corners at any aperture, but that it does get better in this regard around F/8, and aren't expecting, nor needing world class performance from it, sure, absolutely, it's worth looking at. It's not going to cost you a lot, can be had relatively cheap on the used market. As you said, it's a small/light lens, and if that enables you to get a shot you might otherwise miss out on because you don't want to carry the better but bigger/heavier glass, then obviously it has to be considered.

-m

 

[Flashlight]

Just would like to know if the newer Nikon 24mm f1.8G is any better image quality wise than the 24 f2.8D. I can buy the 24 1.8G seconhand but it's still a lot of money $A700 .

I know it's a faster lens but that doesn't worry me as I shoot mai ly f5.6 and above on my D750. I want a couple of good prime lenses for when I want to travel light and take my heavy Tamron 24-70mm . I already hsve the 35mm f1.8g.

I wanted the same as you and decided on the 20, 35 and 85mm f/1.8 primes. The reason is that when you can crop a bit (if you don't always need the full 24MP of the D750) you can easily get all the intermediate (equivalent) FLs and some extra tele reach with a very light package. In that regard I think the 24mm is quite close to the 35mm so I chose the 20mm.

Right now I'm travelling with the D750 plus the 20, 35 an 85 f/1.8 in a Think Tank Retrospective 7. Love it.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

I want a couple of good prime lenses for when I want to travel light and take my heavy Tamron 24-70mm . I already hsve the 35mm f1.8g.

Apologies in advance if this sounds too critical, but I'm not sure you're on the right path to "travel light." Consider for a moment the newly announced Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8~4. It's lighter than the 24mm f/2.8D/35mm f/1.8G combination you're planning to use, and except for maximum aperture offers far more versatility. The 18-35mm f/3.5~4.5G is even lighter and still gets very good reviews. I realize that aperture can be a big "except," but it sounds like it better fits your use pattern.

Allowing for a bit more "scope creep," I'd consider basing a "travel light" kit on a mirrorless system instead of an FX dSLR. The 24mm f/2.8D boasts Nikon's oldest optical design still in production (1977) and by today's standards is a modest performer. My best guess is autofocus won't be possible with this lens and Nikon's upcoming mirrorless line. I tried the Nikon 1-series in the "travel light" role after buying a V1 to use atop a microscope. While I think my current V2/6.7~13mm combination would still fall short of the performance of a D750/24mm f/2.8D combination, for shots like the ones you posted I think it would be closer than you might anticipate. I also think a modern m43 or 1.5x crop mirrorless system could beat both.

 

[dreyko]

The 24mm 1.8 is head and shoulders above the 24d. Its not a question especially when you consider flare.

If your looking to go light you could use your 35 1.8 and stitch 3 verticals into a 24mm image with much better resolution. I do this with my 28mm regularly when I don't want to bring the 20mm. That said my 24mm 1.8 is probably the best wide angle I own. Which is saying something considering I am not partial to the fov.

If you want to go light just get the 18-35. If your considering the 24d the aperture is not a big factor and that gains you focal length choice.

 

[mbecke]

The 24 mm f2.8D is a perfectly fine lens stopped down to at least f5.6; preferably f8. At those apertures, I doubt anyone would see much of a difference between the older lens and the more modern f1.8G. Wide open, or nearly wide open, it is a different story. But certainly outside, doing landscape shooting, and shooting at f8 or so, the old lens works just fine. Plus, arguably, the older lens has richer colors than does the modern version. It just depends on what you are doing with it.

 

[johnanderson]

Just would like to know if the newer Nikon 24mm f1.8G is any better image quality wise than the 24 f2.8D. I can buy the 24 1.8G seconhand but it's still a lot of money $A700 .

I know it's a faster lens but that doesn't worry me as I shoot mai ly f5.6 and above on my D750. I want a couple of good prime lenses for when I want to travel light and take my heavy Tamron 24-70mm . I already hsve the 35mm f1.8g.

Love the 24mm f/2.8D, a lens that does not get huge amounts of love here because everyone is sharpness mad. It has a lot of character and easy to shove in your pocket. Try both.

 

[primeshooter]

24mm 1.4G on D850


24mm 2.8D on D850

Yes the first picture is a better picture of course but why do I own both? Because sometimes I just want a wide that fits in the pocket. Also, different lenses give different looks to the files, sometimes I want that. I'm not even scared to shoot the old one on a D850 as you see here.

 

[mbecke]

24mm 1.4G on D850


24mm 2.8D on D850

Yes the first picture is a better picture of course but why do I own both? Because sometimes I just want a wide that fits in the pocket. Also, different lenses give different looks to the files, sometimes I want that. I'm not even scared to shoot the old one on a D850 as you see here.

I liked the bottom (2nd) photo much better; the one that was taken with the old lens. I have always liked and generally preferred the "old style" Nikon rendering. Just me, I guess.

 

[CAT Productions]

24mm 1.4G on D850


24mm 2.8D on D850

Yes the first picture is a better picture of course but why do I own both? Because sometimes I just want a wide that fits in the pocket. Also, different lenses give different looks to the files, sometimes I want that. I'm not even scared to shoot the old one on a D850 as you see here.

I liked the bottom (2nd) photo much better; the one that was taken with the old lens. I have always liked and generally preferred the "old style" Nikon rendering. Just me, I guess.

Well, the 2nd photo is better composed.

 

[primeshooter]

24mm 1.4G on D850


24mm 2.8D on D850

Yes the first picture is a better picture of course but why do I own both? Because sometimes I just want a wide that fits in the pocket. Also, different lenses give different looks to the files, sometimes I want that. I'm not even scared to shoot the old one on a D850 as you see here.

I liked the bottom (2nd) photo much better; the one that was taken with the old lens. I have always liked and generally preferred the "old style" Nikon rendering. Just me, I guess.

Well, the 2nd photo is better composed.

Although I was still careful to not have the horse aligned half on the fenced feed area behind him in the second shot, it really was more of a quick grab shot whilst the horse stood still. It's interesting you think this way but compositional elements do have some subjectivity I guess. When approaching the first scene I wanted the horse to be off centre because the scene isn't very symmetrical. That said my thinking was this: the horses head is basically on a third due to the scene not being symmetrical enough in my view to work with the other elements in the scene. I tried to ensure also that the tree line at the top finished before his body commenced, so that there was no overlap as you can see - this also sets up a small leading towards the horses body and face. I also tried to ensure the fence framed him as you can see it almost touches his face but does not. Lastly I left the hillside at roughly a third position as well to balance it all off. I set it up with as many lines as I could see that led toward the horse as well as a bit of sub framing.

They are both in different light of course too, the first being the last golden light of the setting sun. You don't get much time with horses...with these shots both ears have to be up and a good facial expression...the horse will loose interest as it did and move away quickly. Both lenses render very differently of course, light aside and I like them both for different reasons.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

At imaging.nikon.com you can compare the MTF of the 1.8 version at f1.8 (the obvious winner) to the 32 year old optical design of the f2.8 version at f2.8 to get an idea of what is "mediocre" by my standards in 2018.

As Nikon acknowledge the f1.8 version is optically better at f1.8 then the f2.8 version at f2.8, it is a safe bet which is the better overall performer, especially if you intend to shoot near wide open.

If you might eventually go Nikon mirrorless over the next few years it is likely (though nothing is confirmed) the mirrorless F mount converter will not support any AF on the f2.8 version.

Lesser details include that in many parts of the world the hood for f2.8 version is an expensive extra, and that in Nikon's filter guidance their slimline pol is quoted as hard vignetting on the f2.8 version.

 

[rpps]

I picked up the 24mm 1.8G yesterday from the shop and because it's second hand I made sure I could return it if I wasn't happy with it.

I started shooting brick walls and flat surfaces and everything seem pretty sharp right across the frame from f1.8 to f11. I then took some quick photos using f8 and I was pretty impressed with the detail especially when viewing distant objects and the focus set on infinity. But when I shot the same scene at f1.8 the photo was so out of focus in the area where I focused then I noticed the foreground was much sharper than where I focused. At f8 everything was in focus but I guess this is due to greater depth of field.

I will try live view and take the same photos and compare them, the lens is front focusing which I probably can rectify with Focus Fine Tune but not wanting to have to do this. The lens will go back today and I might pay the $A250 extra and get a new one with warranty.

I added a few photos where you can see the difference forgive the subject matter the photos were taken just to compare photos taken at f1.8 and f8.

 

[anotherMike]

Having to do some focus tuning is a reality. If the lens is performing well when focused with live view, and if its sharp edge to edge by F/8 or so, with no obvious signs of tilt or decenter, you're good to go. No guarantee a new one won't need focus tuning. When I had the 24/1.8G, in fact, with most lenses I have bought, some focus tuning is needed.

-m