Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikkor 24mm f/2 and f/2.8 quick comparison
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:57 pm    Post subject: Nikkor 24mm f/2 and f/2.8 quick comparison Reply with quote
Please note that the first image is always 24mm f/2.8 and the second one 24mm f/2. Shots were taken with Canon 5dMkII, there is a slight exposure difference and , unfortunately, I used two different Nikon/Canon adapters which do affect infinity focus points.













I think the results speak for itself. If I manage will post both lenses test at f/2.8. Hope you will find this useful.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks 24mm f2 just a commercial pretty bad looking at F2 I did expect better result Sad


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have an AIs 24/2.8. Glad to see it holds up so well against the 24/2. I'm also glad to see that there is not a large difference in DOF between the two lenses. Removes any desire on my part to want to own a 24/2.

I do believe, to be fair, that both lenses should be compared at f/2.8. I look forward to seeing those tests.

Last edited by cooltouch on Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:54 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
... or even at f/4 ... To me there seem to be sharpening halo artifacts -from the camera? - that mask any subtle stuff that may be going on with each lens


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Faster lens draws less lpmm than slower lens, but costs more. Where is the news? Cool

Save your time no need to re-shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 (or even f/5.6). At all those apertures, the 24/2.8 Ai-S will outperform the 24/2 Ai-S in center detail (small but noticeable margin) as well as how well corners and edges are brought into sharpness (more noticeable margin). 24/2.8 also has less geometric distortion and CA than the 24/2.

Interesting to see how signal processing seems to affect image files. The Nikon bodies I've used this lens on (D700, D3) must be doing something else than just capture the image, because I see your samples taken with the 5D Mk II show more CA. This isn't surprising, every manufacturer probably has programmed their own formulaes for their lenses into their signal processing algorithms. Or maybe it is the RAW converter used here?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I saw exactly the same sort of results, and sold the 24/2. Both are good lenses are produce lovely colours, but the 24/2 is very soft in the corners.

Thanks for the test!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
This isn't surprising, every manufacturer probably has programmed their own formulaes for their lenses into their signal processing algorithms. Or maybe it is the RAW converter used here?

Do you think that the algorithms extend to their legacy MF lenses? I think that, if this is the case, it would only be if the optical formula remained unchanged.

As for the raw converter -- maybe shooting in jpg format would reveal this difference, if any?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Do you think that the algorithms extend to their legacy MF lenses? I think that, if this is the case, it would only be if the optical formula remained unchanged.


I believe it's either the sensor or then the signal processing system which can remove the CA already before saving the RAW file. I don't know how and where in the analog to digital conversion and signal processing it is done, but programming it wouldn't be hard as their lens designs are computer-simulated quite easily - many of the 1970's lenses are already computer-designed.

Take my 50/1.2 Ai-S for instance, it gives noticeably different results in terms of CA depending on whether I put it on a D2x, D3/D700 or D70 or D300.

More on-camera "pre-processing": The newer bodies come pre-programmed with about 30,000 white-balance settings/compositions, which makes the Auto WB feature much much smarter than the previous generation of Auto WB, which was dependent on the WB sensors readings.

cooltouch wrote:
As for the raw converter -- maybe shooting in jpg format would reveal this difference, if any?


I don't think this applies to photos taken with a non-Nikon DSLR.

Capture NX 2 has automatic lateral and longitudinal CA removal embedded as option, and it's more efficient with the chipped Nikkors. With unchipped Nikkors it helps, but does not remove purple fringing as effectively as that of the chipped versions. I suspect this same module is programmed into the on-camera RAW to JPEG converter on newer Nikon DSLRs.

Same with removal of geometric distortion, CNX2 knows from the chip provided EXIF data what lens, what focusing distance and aperture was used, and can therefore apply very effective and accurate removal of geometric distortion without destroying detail. As we know, geometric distortion is often not consistent throughout the focusing range, and it also varies on the frame (simple barrel, complex moustache etc.)

So answer is yes, and yes - I believe so.

P.S. I asked these questions during my stay in Japan, but none of the Nikon engineers were willing to reply (I evidently stepped into an area they prefer keeping as internal knowledge). The only useable reply I received was a product manager who later replied by email something which was about this: "the RAW file saved on the card is the product of the analog signal and subsequent signal processing, which is also the reason why the Nikkor lens will perform best on a Nikon DSLR."


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's my Nikkor 24/2.8 Ai-S wide open, near infinity but not at infinity. Full size file for download: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20410227/_MVA4266.jpg

Look at the rooftop, the left half borders to blown out channels but the right half doesn't and there is in effect very little CA if any


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 2/24mm is overpriced compared to the 2.8/24mm, but that is not new.

Furthermore I believe that you have a bad copy of this lens or something is wrong with the adapter or it makes no sence to make a comparision of - in this case - Nikon lenses with different adapters at a Canon body.

If you accept here 3 samples with 2/24mm Ai all at F/4 and D700. I think the results are ok.







But I agree - these results would be possible with the cheaper 2.8/24mm as well.


Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 24/2 is in no way a bad lens and those results look great. The differences are measurable but that doesn't make them big. I don't think it's overpriced, you pay that extra money because it is f/2 and 24mm wide. Fast wide lenses have always been sought after, and users know that slower wide-angles draw more detail. Fast wides also keep their value better than slower wides, because of their attractiveness.

If I still had the 24/2 side by side with my other 24mm lenses (Nikkor 24/2.8 Ai-S, 24/2.8D AF, 24-70/2.8G AF-S, 17-35/2.8D AF-S I wouldn't refrain from using it. Lenses are not only about focal length and lpmm, they have different design goals. Why do I have all those 24mm lenses? Why do I have a bag of 50mm lenses? Because they're all different and all have strong points that others don't.

Take the Planar 85/1.4 for example. Whether by accident or not, the fact that it's undercorrected at close focus and outstanding at medium to infinity has probably made it one of the most famous portrait lenses ever. It has a dual character, fine portrait fingerprint but take it out for a landscape shoot... Wow.

What is often forgotten when spending hours and days trying to find out "The Winner" is that detail is overrated. 99% of all image use is online in resolution that hides the stuff that lens aficionados don't want in their lenses (whether aberrations show in published work or not)


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
it's too bad the nFD mount is problematic for most DSLRs, because the nFD 24 f/2 is probably the best MF 24 ever made and about 70USD cheaper than the nikon. It's also small and light.

Many of the FD aholics think its the best lens in the entire FD series.





PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Check Bjørn Rørslett opinion...
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
it's too bad the nFD mount is problematic for most DSLRs, because the nFD 24 f/2 is probably the best MF 24 ever made and about 70USD cheaper than the nikon. It's also small and light.

Many of the FD aholics think its the best lens in the entire FD series.

[/img]

Wow ! Not the 1.4 L ? (which is NOT small and light)


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phenix jc wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
it's too bad the nFD mount is problematic for most DSLRs, because the nFD 24 f/2 is probably the best MF 24 ever made and about 70USD cheaper than the nikon. It's also small and light.

Many of the FD aholics think its the best lens in the entire FD series.

[/img]

Wow ! Not the 1.4 L ? (which is NOT small and light)


see:

http://home.comcast.net/~starka/24mm/24mmIntro.htm


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I owned the Nikkor 24/2 for a dozen years and loved its compact size and the FOV (preferred it over the 28, even on film). However, I would have to agree with Bjørn Rørslett's review referenced above. My sample never lived up to expectations and finally sold it when the Nikkor AF-S 24/1.4 became available. The 24/2 is still an expensive optic (typically selling from $400-450US) solely, IMHO because its speed and where the images at f/2 are just not that usable; at f/2 it's dreamy, hazy, very soft even in the center; if that's the look you seek, then this lens will serve you well....

I really do believe there are better MF options out there.

Last edited by james on Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
if f/2 and wide is what you want then Nikkor 28/2 is high quality, many forum members have it and have posted awesome images taken with it.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Would agree with Vilhelm; up against the Nikkor 28/2, there is no contest. That is one classic lens (I have an AIS version) and performance at f/2 is just wonderful. It's also less expensive than the 24/2.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have 24/2.8 AIS and its excellent.... sharp even at 2.8

here's a sample on a D300s



PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is also Zuiko 24/2 which according to many opinions is better than 24/2.8 which is excellent lens. Has anyone ever used the 24/2 Zuiko?


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
see:

((Thx)


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
NikonD wrote:
I have 24/2.8 AIS and its excellent.... sharp even at 2.8


and this lens is not expensive--really one of the great nikon values.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
NikonD wrote:
I have 24/2.8 AIS and its excellent.... sharp even at 2.8


Yes, on crop frame this is a very hard to beat lens - the softness towards the corners is left outside the image circle covered by the 1.5x crop sensor. Results are very good immediately from wide open.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
NikonD wrote:
I have 24/2.8 AIS and its excellent.... sharp even at 2.8


Yes, on crop frame this is a very hard to beat lens - the softness towards the corners is left outside the image circle covered by the 1.5x crop sensor. Results are very good immediately from wide open.


true Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1