Nikon 24mm f2.8 (AI,AIS,AF & AFD) Review

[Evin Grant]

Nikon 24mm f2.8 (AI,AIS,AF & AFD)
http://www.keh.com/ProductImages/fullSize/NK06000002312.jpg

History:
This lens was first made in 1967. It was a revolutionary design then, the first lens to feature a floating element design called CRC (Close Range Correction) by Nikon. The body was updated to AI in 1977, AIS in 1982 and AF in 1986. The optical formula has not changed.

http://www.reduser.net/evin/nikon24mmf2.8/jpeg/nikon24mmf2.8WM.jpg

Performance:
This is just a superb wide lens. Although not extremely fast it is totally useable at f2.8. It gets only slightly better stopped down. By f11 Difraction actually lowers the resolution.

100% crops from Nikon D2x RAW, processed in Adobe ACR with 10% sharpen
http://www.reduser.net/evin/nikon24mmf2.8/jpeg/Nikon24mmf2.8W.jpg

The best stop is f5.6, CA control is amazing and micro contrast is just stunning for a wide.

http://www.reduser.net/evin/nikon24mmf2.8/jpeg/nikon24mmf2.8M.jpg

Breathing:
http://www.reduser.net/evin/nikon24mmf2.8/nikon24mmBreathtest.gif
The CRC makes breathing with this lens almost a non issue

Bokeh:
http://www.reduser.net/evin/nikon24mmf2.8/nikon24mmbokehtest.gif
Not bad but nothing to get all excited about either, some small star shape at f8 and above.

Build and adptability to cinema:
The earlier AI & AIS version are built tougher than the later AF but either will perform admirably. The longer focus of the earlier AI is very useful. The first Non AI version is a little rougher to focus.

Price/Value:
At about $150-$300 this lens is a no brainer as an addition to an affordable prime kit. It becomes less interesting when stacked against the 17-35mm 2.8 but is a better buy than the 24mm f2 Nikkor which doesn't perform any better at 2.8.

Uncompressed tiffs (27MB each, be patient!)
http://www.reduser.net/evin/nikon24mmf2.8/tiffs/

[Jared VanLeuven]

Thanks again, Evin. Great stuff and much thanks!

[Don Woods]

Thanks Evin another good review.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Evin for a nice review. Also I will do my video tests with Nikkor-N A 24mm f2.8 (the first versioin from 1967) soon because now the weather in Vienna is getting better.

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/Nikkor_N_24mm2-8.jpg

Photo shot with Hasselblad Zeiss Planat T* 80mm f 1:2.8 on Canon 30D with Hasselblad adapter

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

I just want to say that I appreciate these reviews Evin - all of them!

[Steve Gibby]

Evin,

Thanks for the lens testing. I think this whole forum appreciates your work on all these tests. Even those of us who are veteran shooters like to read tests and opinions on lenses. We're all hopeless (or hopeful) "lensaholics"...and happy to be so.

Cheers...

[RED-Tank]

Hi Evin,

Please can you explain a bit about "but is a better buy than the 24mm f2 Nikkor which doesn't perform any better at 2.8.", is it something wrong to the 2.8 for 24mm f2 len ? I have just spent GBP 180 to get this len from eBay, I thought that could be better... :<..

[sean90291]

Is there any reason that the much loved Nikkor 17-35mm does NOT deliver an image as "cinematic" as this Nikkor 24mm prime? Only asking because a friend of mine feels any zoom-through lens looks flatter/more video-like than a prime. All very subjective, I realize.

[Evin Grant]

Is there any reason that the much loved Nikkor 17-35mm does NOT deliver an image as "cinematic" as this Nikkor 24mm prime? Only asking because a friend of mine feels any zoom-through lens looks flatter/more video-like than a prime. All very subjective, I realize.

That's one I've never heard before. My feeling is that "Cinematic" comes from the 24FPS and shallow DOF, I don't think zooms are any flatter, they have been used in movies for 45 years and no normal viewer I know has ever been able to distuinguish them on screen.

[sean90291]

I see. Maybe it's simply that any wide angle is potentially less cinematic, since there's a deeper depth of field. Thanks for your input.

[Evin Grant]

Don't over think this shit, just go with what feel good to you.

[Bruce Allen]

Thanks Evin

So, the advantages of getting this over the 17-35 are:
- lighter weight
- longer focus
- cheaper

The 17-35 is supposed to have a short focus, right?
In this review...
http://www.bythom.com/1735lens.htm
...Thom Hogan says that "The zoom ring has a smooth operation, the focus ring only slightly less so. Both rings give the full range of options through only a quarter turn; I'd have preferred slightly more turn, which gives you more subtle control, but it's fine as is."

So, you can use the 24 2.8 without a geared follow-focus, whereas the zoom would seem to necessitate one, is that the idea?

Thanks again
Bruce

[Evin Grant]

both necessiate a follow focus but the prime will be easier on your AC. This may be a non issue with Reds focus assist system, if it's as revolutionary as we hope.

[Barend Onneweer]

Maybe it's simply that any wide angle is potentially less cinematic, since there's a deeper depth of field.

Somehow shallow DoF seems to have become the holy grail for people with a video background. Obviously it's a great tool, that can be used effectively. But in the same way a deep DoF can be used to tell a cinematic story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_focus

And there are many filmmakers that lean towards wide-angles. The Coen Brothers, Jean-Pierre Jeunet and many more.

[Evin Grant]

I don't remember Citizen Kane being any less cinemaitc because of it's deep focus style.

[garageman]

Deep focus is always something I've really strived for, shallow focus has it's place in a film, but is in no way synonymous with cinema itself.