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 f2.0 AI
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:31 am    Post subject: Nikkor 24mm f2.0 AI Reply with quote
I read many 'less-good' reviews, especially wide open, of this lens and decided to go out a week/10-days with it.
I don't have nikon dslr so I use a sony nex.

Wide open does have glow that I dislike a bit, but stepping down just a bit gives much better result. By 'stepping down a bit', I mean slightly move the aperture ring between 2.0 and 2.8. I guess my copy can step down to f2.2, with barely smaller aperture than wide open.

I tested wide open, ~1/3 step (barely visible smaller), and 1/2 step (between 2 clicks)
Results are very ok - not wide open then, but faster than f2.8. No PP applied. jpg output from LR, standard sharpen for screen.

Are photos f2.2/f2.5 look bad for you?

100% crop wide open:


100% crop ~f2.2:


100% crop wide open:


100% crop ~f2.5:


100% crop wide open:


100% crop ~f2.2:


100% crop ~f2.2:


100% crop ~f2.2:


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How on Earth can the lens that was used by all pro journos at the time be "less good"? Less good than what?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi hoanpham !

I think you are a hard, cruel taskmaster to your lenses Very Happy Rest assured, it is a fine lens but what you're asking it to do is a bit like making the 100 meter sprinter keep going at the same speed over 400 meters . . . Full aperture in brilliant sunshine is pushing things very hard indeed.

Try the experiment again, but use raw rather than jpg, expose for the highlights and then add a little contrast and shadow-lifting in processing. Things will look better, but believe me, they're not bad as they are !


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doesn't look great to me, the glow is the problem, it seems to mask the sharpness and make it look less sharp.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Doesn't look great to me, the glow is the problem, it seems to mask the sharpness and make it look less sharp.


It becomes a soft lens at f2.0, but very usable at f2.2 or f2.5.

Stephen,
I am not hard nor difficult, just pure curiousity. I shot raw only.
The lens is good. May be not as good as canon fd 24/1.4 at f2.0, but lighter smaller.

Other may say if they cannot use at f2.0, why keep it? get the 24/2.8 which is cheaper (!) That extra light between f2.0 and f2.8 may worth the difference. I don't have the nikkor 24/2.8 to compare at f2.8, but this lens is very good at f2.8. After a week, I have many samples and will pick a few later.

These are full images of the above crops taken at f2.5 and f2.2:




PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you want center sharpness and less glow, try Canon FD 24/2, it is better in this aspect and very useable at f2 on crop.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a decent enough lens in my experience, with very nice colours. BUT...it's not as good as the 28/2. I was truely amazed with that model...


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no PP, f2.2:


Slightly increase fill light, f2.2:


ManualFocus-G wrote:
It's a decent enough lens in my experience, with very nice colours. BUT...it's not as good as the 28/2. I was truely amazed with that model...


The lens is a good one indeed. f2.2 removed most of the glow, sharp enough and still keep the bokeh i like Cool
I have the 28/2 but havent use it much after i got the hexanon uc 28/1.8. For safety reason, i keep using the pentax 28/2 'distagon'. Next round should dedicate to the nikkor 28/2.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just my taste but to me the bokeh is horrible, has a sort of zooming effect going on, quite unsettling to look at.

How does it perform at 2.8? Is the glow gone? I really don't like the look it has at 2.2 or 2.5.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Their was another thread about the Nikkor 2/24 AI. I just can't see buying this lens over the Nikkor 2.8/24. Now if I found one cheap that's another matter. Very Happy

http://forum.mflenses.com/nikkor-2-0-24mm-ai-t35970,highlight,%2Bnikkor+%2B24mm.html


PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the link Walter, lots of good info in that thread. Seems the consensus is the 2.8/24 is a much better lens overall. Just waiting for my adapter to arrive so I can try my newly acquired 2.8/24 Nikkor-N. When I saw the glow and 'zoom' bokeh of the 2/24 I was worried the 2.8/24 might suffer from the same defects, but that thread eases my mind that it doesn't. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Walter. I was reading your reference thread a while ago, but cannot locate it when I started this one - and several others.

Ian,
Yes I agree that the bokeh has some distracting pattern. The zoom effect of the bokeh is amplified at closer distance. At f2.8 most of the glow is gone, the lens is sharp, but the bokeh with zoom pattern is still the same. That kind of bokeh makes framing a bit challenge: anything off center will be distracting. In the other hand, it might create a dynamic look. Due to this uneven bokeh, I expect worse rending on FF sensors.

Safe distance, f2.2, no pp:


Make the best out of it - 'dynamic' bokeh:



PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks quite sharp to me but I dislike the bokeh. Reminds me of Vivitar (Kiron) 28mm f2 same type of bokeh...


PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried it out this morning with D800 the first time due to your thread. Below 2 samples with the same type of bokeh.
All images wide open at f/2





Wink


PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Rolf.
Quite distracting for a flower shot Smile
D800's output is very nice.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
Looks quite sharp to me but I dislike the bokeh. Reminds me of Vivitar (Kiron) 28mm f2 same type of bokeh...


I too have the Kiron 28/2. The nikkor has more zoom bokeh. The distances amplifies this effect, ie. closer distance to subject, longer distance to background. Indoor is safe. I use f2.2 to max the sharpness. The nikkor is a good lens, and interesting bokeh as property.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Using a fast wide-angle lens for macro work in front light and complaining about bad bokeh or traces of CA when viewed at 100% is in my opinion similar to pouring too low octane gasoline into an SUV, taking it to a race track and then complain it doesn't corner very well and acceleration sucks.

Here you got what you asked for - if you're interested in smooth bokeh perhaps you should look at lens designs which were not designed for maximized depth of field? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
Using a fast wide-angle lens for macro work in front light and complaining about bad bokeh or traces of CA when viewed at 100% is in my opinion similar to pouring too low octane gasoline into an SUV, taking it to a race track and then complain it doesn't corner very well and acceleration sucks.

Here you got what you asked for - if you're interested in smooth bokeh perhaps you should look at lens designs which were not designed for maximized depth of field? Rolling Eyes


Hey, Just a test run right? Laughing
My opinion may sounds harsh to the lens. I like to push things to the limits.

As I mentioned earlier, other might dislike the lens, but it's a good lens. As for all lenses, there are limitations.
I also have photos taken with other aperture settings. At f5.6-8-11, these photos are at pixel level. I got borred after a while with sharp images and focus on the weak spots to have some fun/brain teaser when watching my kids.

The bottom line is I know what it is good for and what I can do with it's weakest spots. I really like the dynamic bokeh background with my boy looking upward.

My next question is:
Which lenses, from ~28mm and wider, from ~f2.8 and faster, can shot wide, landscape, close, produce the bokeh like this and still very sharp when stepping down a click?

It was one of the best in time. It is still a 24mm f2.0.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
I really like the dynamic bokeh background with my boy looking upward.

It is a nice picture for sure, but with such foreground distraction in the background is hardly experienced Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolfan wrote:
...but with such foreground distraction in the background is hardly experienced Very Happy

I would say 'horrible' Laughing speaking of bokeh alone.
It's the only lens I have that can produce this effect with no PP.
In some point in photography journey, you may find it borring with smooth/buttery bokeh too Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:

Hey, Just a test run right? Laughing
My opinion may sounds harsh to the lens. I like to push things to the limits.


Don't get me wrong, my irony is dry humor as I am mildly amused by zero research like this. I practice archery and skeet as a hobby, and if this were a skeet shooting forum there would be no-one, I mean no-one posting test results where they find out that their small-game shotgun proved useless when they tried to stop a wild boar charging at them Laughing

Yes, this is the Internet age - camera enthusiasts like to dig their nose until they see blood on their fingertip. I just fail to see how this is related to (or develops) the craft of photography. Well, the name of the forum is Manual Focus Lenses so my question is irrelevant, the purpose here is gear-centric as opposed to focusing on the aesthetics of results.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

Don't get me wrong, my irony is dry humor as I am mildly amused by zero research like this. I practice archery and skeet as a hobby, and if this were a skeet shooting forum there would be no-one, I mean no-one posting test results where they find out that their small-game shotgun proved useless when they tried to stop a wild boar charging at them Laughing

Yes, this is the Internet age - camera enthusiasts like to dig their nose until they see blood on their fingertip. I just fail to see how this is related to (or develops) the craft of photography. Well, the name of the forum is Manual Focus Lenses so my question is irrelevant, the purpose here is gear-centric as opposed to focusing on the aesthetics of results.


but you are completely right regarding using fast wide, front light, macro etc.
I had only one lens for 10 days, and had 5-6 hrs to play with it everyday.
I shot lots of photos but never win a contest Very Happy
This lens won't make me a better photographer after 10 days.

Sounds like a fun sport you have.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Sounds like a fun sport you have.


I recommend you try archery, it is very efficient training for camera holding technique - breathing, pose, balance, trigger etc.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
I use f2.2 to max the sharpness.

In the first pair of pictures you have clearly reduced the exposure in going from f/2 to f/2.2. Maybe it is this reduction in exposure which is responsible for the increase in sharpness. Have you compared f/2 and f/2.2 with similar exposures ?


PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

I recommend you try archery, it is very efficient training for camera holding technique - breathing, pose, balance, trigger etc.

Sure I will try if I cruise over a club in town.
Remind me first time i visit texas in the 80's: My cousin took me out to a shooting range try guns with 300 bullets Laughing

sichko wrote:

In the first pair of pictures you have clearly reduced the exposure in going from f/2 to f/2.2. Maybe it is this reduction in exposure which is responsible for the increase in sharpness. Have you compared f/2 and f/2.2 with similar exposures ?


I have all test photos, it's just too borring to look at them, so I pick a few and some 100% crop to illustrate the point.

f2.0 in bright sunlight, will glow up badly. The glow is so visible that makes the photo look unsharp. When the subject is in the shade, it's no longer a problem, just make sure the face has not partly sun lit. I also use EV alot from case to case. Also the later portraits, I use the sun as front light to max the bokeh in background.

Cloudy cast 1/2-portraits may be the best use of f2.0. I use f2.0 in few first days, then tape the aperture ring at ~f2.2 in the last days. It's just my compromise between f-stop and sharpness.

Like the bokeh better?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1