It's in spanish and I'm too lazy to link the translated version, but the pictures are pretty much self-explanatory. Seems like a great lens with an awful price tag :^(
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/nikon-24-mm-f1.4-analisis-fotos,1_6256
Nikkor 24mm f1.4 Review With Image Samples
(45 posts) (19 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Oh here's a blog review in English and with lots of brick wall shots :^)
Great lens that you can keep as a family heirloom.
http://joshuaarcher.posterous.com/nikon-24mm-f14-review-versus-sigma-24mm-f18-l-0
Posted 3 years ago # -
It is not that sharp wide open, but it gets better as you close the aperture.
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's true with just about any f1.4 lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's true with just about any lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Seems like a good lens for a pro if you need a modern wide angle prime. Man for $2,200, it's hard not to buy a 14-24 2.8 instead.
Just wondering, how good is the old 24mm 2.8?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Old 24 f/2.8 was one of the best Nikon lenses ever, and for 400$ it looks like a bargain these days. And you hardly need AF with such a wide lens so SWM is not much of the advantage.
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
Old 24 f/2.8 was one of the best Nikon lenses ever, and for 400$ it looks like a bargain these days. And you hardly need AF with such a wide lens so SWM is not much of the advantage.Hmmm, sounds like a nice lens to pick up, I agree, especially since I have an old film SLR.
Moose Peterson puts it very well in his review of this lens.
http://moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=14276
There are many lenses that cover 24mm- 24-70, 14-24, 24mm PC-E. You only need this for the 1.4.
Posted 3 years ago # -
http://www.enduserblog.com/2010/04/review-nikon-24mm-f14.html -- From Ryan Brenizer
Great pictures but $$$$
Posted 2 years ago # -
Nice review by Moose. Notice he must have (at least access to) two of them as he's using the 24/1.4 to shoot the video as well!
And don't forget the manual focus 24/2... not as sharp (I assume), but it will give you a taste of the real thing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
the 24 2.8 is solid, but don't compare picture quality to the 24-70/14-24 and probably the 24 1.4.
Nano coating has created a LARGE and discernable gap in coma/flare/ghosting qualities between the newer lenses and the older 24 2.8.
Still small and respectable, and you can get them CHEAP used (I sold mine for only $250, NIB, recently), but if your ultimate goal is image quality, I'd look elsewhere. . .I know I couldn't clean the pictures well enough for paying clients.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have been on a waitlist for this lens & just received the call that it has arrived but am now nervous after reading a review from digiloyd that said the lens is a mess w/AF issues-Do you have any insight regarding this problem & do you think it is safe for me to go ahead & buy it now?
Thanks for any insight you can give me regarding this lens.
KPosted 2 years ago # -
I'll go ahead, as I still think that some ppl have problems with AF due to lack of understanding that at 1.4 on FX the DOF is so shallow that it's actually very hard to focus correctly. I've seen this lens in action and it's very impressing what You can achieve with it when You use it on FX body.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi all. Right a question for my rumors family. I've just received payment for a wedding shoot in 2013, so have the money to buy one of these. Most of you will know my current set up....D700 & D3s used together, trinity zooms and 50 1.4G, 85 1.4G & 105 2.8 micro. I sometimes wish I had a faster wide angle for wedding shoots in confined spaces with poor light, and this 1.4 would obviously be 2 stops faster than the otherwise excellent 14-24 (or 24-70). Question, if you had £1500 to spend with my existing kit, would you buy:
a) 24 1.4G
b) 28 1.8G and put nearly £1000 away for when I come to buy a couple of D4s's?
c) Use a flash more :-)Every review I have ever read on the 24 states it's as brilliant as the others in the range, but would I make a serious mistake or "ruin the ship for a hapeth of tar" if I went for the 28?
Posted 10 months ago # -
You're probably not going to like this:
In my humble opinion your existing kit is very good. If you already have all the bookings you need/want, spend the money however you like. (I like spending money on gear.) If you could use more bookings, why not consider using the money to market your talents instead to get more jobs? Then use the money from the increased work to...
Posted 10 months ago # -
I have to confess to using a lot more flash recently, the CLS seem to be even better on the D800
but if I did more weddings, the 24 f 1.4 would be a must have
Posted 10 months ago # -
Given the DOF of 24 1.4G, I believe your 50 1.4G is sufficient. Thus, I would pass on this lens. You also don't need the D4, your D3s kicks ass...save the cash buddy.
Posted 10 months ago # -
-
Here's my thinking on justifying purchases these days (it tends to evolve), so take it with a grain of salt...
If you're GOING to buy a wide prime, get the f/1.4. As a working professional, if you're ever in a situation when you need f/1.4, and you don't have it, you're letting yourself and your clients down. To me, pro = no compromises.
Other than that, I will fall back on 'only you know what/how you shoot' etc. Meaning, chances are if you are thinking about getting one, you probably could use one effectively.
And finally, (not that you asked), get one D4 and replace the D700. I own the D700 and love it six ways to Sunday, but as someone who owns it and the D3s you probably understand better than I what the step up a D4 would mean for your final product.
Go get 'em, tiger.
Posted 10 months ago # -
option A skintbrit, You will regret any other options :) 1.4 is 2 stops faster than Your current setup, though it's gonna be paper thin DOF
Posted 10 months ago # -
shawnino said:
You're probably not going to like this:Hey, not at all, I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want your opinion. I'm fortunate to have a network of moles, who hand out my business cards, and keep me pretty busy.
golf007sd said:
Given the DOF of 24 1.4G, I believe your 50 1.4G is sufficient. Thus, I would pass on this lens. You also don't need the D4, your D3s kicks ass...save the cash buddy.I'm not sure I understand your comments golf? The problem I'm having sometimes, is not being able to fit everything in the frame with the 50. 90% of the time the 24-70 & 70-200 give me what I need, I just feel I lack in the wide low light department sometimes. Regarding the D4, you're right at the moment I can't justify £11,000 on changing my equipment, but maybe when the next round of cameras comes out I'll be able to?
tcole1983 said:
But then you don't get to buy anything ;)Are we twins? :-)
elvishefer said:
If you're GOING to buy a wide prime, get the f/1.4. As a working professional, if you're ever in a situation when you need f/1.4, and you don't have it, you're letting yourself and your clients down. To me, pro = no compromises.Yes I suppose they were my thoughts also.
elvishefer said:
And finally, (not that you asked), get one D4 and replace the D700.I'd love to do just that, but the cost to change at the moment I just don't feel can be justified. It would involve me changing not just the camera, but so many other items of equipment (Power supplies, leads and cables, new memory cards etc), at the moment I really like the fact that I can use the same batteries/charger/cards in both cameras. Without a doubt the D4 would offer me some great advantages, maybe when the D4 S comes out I'll take the plunge and buy a couple? The thought of that expense is making my eyes water already.
adamz said:
option A skintbrit, You will regret any other options :) 1.4 is 2 stops faster than Your current setup, though it's gonna be paper thin DOFThanks Adam, it's interesting that no one has recommended the 28mm option. I think you're right that IF I buy one, I would always regret not buying the 1.4. You're right about the depth of field at 1.4, but obviously a 1.4 stopped down to f2, or even 2.8, will be sharper than my 2.8's wide open.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Just to share an experience.... in 1970 I was in Europe on holiday with an F and PhotomicT body, and 85mm f/1.8 and 24mm f/2.8. Shot about three hundred exposures with the 24mm, about ten with the 85mm. I love the 24mm on full frame. And I am lusting after the 24mm f/1.4, but actually for me, I purchased the 24mm f/3.5 PC instead as I like to do the architectural stuff.
In the late 1960's I shot with the 24mm in furniture showrooms during High Point's International Home Furnishings Market, and a couple were published in House Beautiful magazine, the first ever 35mm transparencies of furniture ever used for the magazine, I was told.
One cannot beat this focal length. And, I think the 28mm just does not do it. The 24mm gives about 70° horizontally, which if used judiciously can be a very effective lens for close quarters. And the 28mm will only give about 64° horizontally.
So, if I can help you spend £1500, plea allow me......just remember I do not have great judgement when it comes to money....ha, ha, ha.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I am not a pro, but if I am, this is exactly my thought on the topic :)
elvishefer
"If you're GOING to buy a wide prime, get the f/1.4. As a working professional, if you're ever in a situation when you need f/1.4, and you don't have it, you're letting yourself and your clients down. To me, pro = no compromises."Posted 10 months ago # -
SkintBrit...sorry for not clarifying myself better amigo. A friend of mine has the 24mm 1.4 and the issue I had using it was when the subject's eye's were not in the same plane, in post I found that one eye was tack tack crazy sharp, while the other was not, due to the DOF being sooo shallow. FYI...when I was using it I was like 4-5' from the subject.
I do not question your skills or you ability to put this lens to use as you see fit, I just found that this lens is such a very very special purpose lens that for me and the type of photography that I do, it would not be put to it true potential. If I want wide my 14-24 2.8 does all I need it to do and much much more.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Thanks golf007sd, I understand now what you were trying to say. You, Adam and others who have mentioned the crazy shallow DOF at 1.4 are of course spot on with your warnings, and although I stated that I was looking to buy this lens for the 2 stop advantage it would give me over my 14-24 or 24-70, maybe I wasn't making that statement coherently, rather than thinking I would regularly use it at 1.4, I was thinking that I would use it most often at 2.8 which would obviously give up its light collecting advantage over the zooms, but I am hoping it would give me supirior results over using the zooms constantly at their widest aperture? The question is, is that potential sharpness improvement worth the outlay......I suppose only I can decide that.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
