Best performing 24mm lenses for the Nikon D800 camera

DxOMark published their test results for the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC (AE) lens. Here is an updated list of the best performing 24mm lenses for the Nikon D800 camera:

Lens Price DxOMark Score Sharpness
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 25mm f/2 ZF.2 $1,699 34 22
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED $1,899 34 17
Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC $669 33 21
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 25mm f/2.8 ZF.2 $1,004 23 15

DxOMark conclusion on the Samyang 24mm f/1.4:

The best performing 24mm lens on the Nikon D800 is, surprisingly perhaps, not the relatively new AF-S Nikkor 24mm f1.4G ED but the marginally more affordable manual focus Zeiss Distagon T* 2,0/25 ZF.2. As we can see from the DxOMark score it’s highly corrected, like the Nikkor, but along with a more modest maximum aperture it has noticeably higher peak sharpness. Although the Nikkor is a superb performer, the Zeiss is sharper at every aperture. Even at the initial aperture, the Zeiss has better sharpness and uniformity than Nikkor at f2.0. In third place is the Samyang. It has almost the same DxOMark score, while peak sharpness surpasses even that of the excellent Nikkor.

Given the price, the Samyang is a tempting choice but it lacks the outright performance of both the Nikkor and the Zeiss where it counts most for this type of lens. Nevertheless, performance is still very good at the wider-apertures, and as this model has both the convenience of a built-in CPU and an auto-aperture it’s a far more attractive proposition than the EF mount version is to Canon users. It’s not the best performer optically, that title goes to the Zeiss and if you must have AF, the choice then is limited to the Nikkor, however the Samyang is a decent performer and offers great value.

This entry was posted in Nikon D800, Nikon Lenses and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • vFunct

    Since smaller apertures are generally sharper, does the DxOMark scoring take that into account?

    Will the Nikon 24mm also show a 22MP sharpness if its aperture was set at F2 intend of F1.4?

    • Garth Muller

      i think at f/2 or even f2.2, the samyang would show increased sharpness. i had the samyang 85mm f/1.4. which was already sharp at its max. aperture. between f/2.2 and f/2.8, that 85mm samyang was like katana blade….razor sharp. probably one of the sharpest primes i’ve owned, but manual focus was not my forte. for anyone who is already acquainted with MF lenses, or into videography, investing in a set of samyang (VDSLR) primes would be a lifetime investment.

    • Sloppy

      lenses typically perform best 2 stops down from wide open. The image quality does not improve the smaller the aperture in all cases.

      Set up a tripod and photograph some text at all apertures it will reveal where your lens best performs. The difference in sharpness and contrast varies much more than you may think.

      I think you will find 1-2 stops closed down is the sweet spot.

      • Spy Black

        Some lenses need to go a little further down. The 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors, Ai, D, or G, are at their best at f/5.6.

        • Sloppy

          You very well could be right. When I was in school it was a regular assignment that was done every year with a variety of lenses. More often than not after viewing 60+ labelled prints it was clearly 1-2 stops.

          I am not disagreeing. However,I find that when I shoot in real life situations 5.6 yields the best results and perhaps it is because of all contributing factors. As a controlled test 1-2 stops seemed very consistent in my experience.

          • Spy Black

            On average I think 2-3 stops make the sweet spot for most lenses, and some need a little more.

          • In digital, there are additional factors that give a bias to smaller apertures prior to diffraction setting in. It depends on the sensor in the measurement, but, typically, on a sensor like a D800, with its pixel pitch, f/5.6 – f/8 will be the best range. As you go down in sensor size, usually (but not always) the ideal apertures change. For example, in most micro four thirds lens + camera combos, f/4 is the ideal spot.

            It has everything to do with the fact that all current sensor designs have some degree of “lip” around each pixel on the sensor that blocks light coming from steeper angles, often resulting in that light reflecting into the nearest next pixel at least partially. You may have heard this referred to as “pixel vignette” which is basically what is happening.

            So the less stray, angled light coming in, the less chance of losing critical sharpness and contrast from internal reflections right on the sensor.

            This is a big part of the reason behind why Nikon D3S images look so amazingly good despite their relatively low resolution.

            • Sloppy

              interesting stuff guys and it is so refreshing to have a meaningful discussion. 🙂

        • phosgene

          I could be wrong, but I think the current 24-70 2.8 is sharpest wide open.

          • Spy Black

            No, but it is very sharp wide open in the center. The edges of the lens drop out more, at any aperture, although overall it’s a great lens, albeit more expensive than anyone would like:

          • flimflopwell

            yep you could be wrong!

          • Photo-Jack

            … if you leave the edges out of the equation…
            In my opinion the 24-70 is the worst lens out of Nikon’s dream trinity, and I#d say it deserves a remake. Lets see how the new Sigma will look like

      • regular

        “lenses typically perform best 2 stops down from wide open”.
        This is not an optical rule, just the decision of the maker to limit physical aperture to f2 or f2.8.

        A maker can also decide to market a f/1.4 lens with crappy sharpness until f/4. Look at the Canon EF f/1.4

        • MyrddinWilt

          Yep, and some of the reviews of the Nikon 70-200 f/4 against the 70-200 f/2.8 found that the f/4 is very slightly better at f/4 than the f/2.8.

          A more accurate rule is probably that most lenses are sharpest at f/4. But they are not going to give as shallow DoF there.

          Currently trying to decide between the 24-120 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8. The f/4 is slightly lighter and has VR.

          • pd2009

            Haven’t used 24-120, seems like a good Primarily use the 24-70, great all around, but definitely use primes when I can. Always try to be F 5.0 or smaller with the 24-70 too… VR on my 70-200 / 2.8 is excellent,

          • phosgene

            24-70 all the way. It’s a zoom with background rendering like a prime. Unbelievable lens.

          • Nikonviking

            I have the 24-120 f/4 and on my D800 it is an excellent lens with good sharpness even wide open. It is (relatively) light and the VR is good. I tried the 24-70 f/2.8 before going for the 24-120 mm and it is also a very good lens, but fairly heavy and with no VR Also the extra zoom range o the 24-120 mm is a big plus for me.

          • Dan

            24-120 is very soft from 80-120.

      • Photo-Jack

        As for me the entire 1.4 hype leaves me cold. In the Nikon line up there are serveral 1.8s at least on par in IQ. And forthermore I personally am more after high DOF instead of shallow DOF.
        In case of a 24 I’d be fine with a 2.8 or even 3.5 albeit with excellent coating for a good T-Stop and excellent distortion and aberation control, which should be easier to achieve with a slower lens. (this would make at least f 6.3 according to the 2 stop rule)
        However, excellent sharpness doesn’t seem to be be on a high priority scale of Nikon’s R&D in the recent past (e.g. the 58mm)
        Isn’t it a shame for Nikon that a pretty new brand (Samyang) trumps the Nikon equivatent in sharpness and that at a forth of the price?

      • The 2 stops down thing is mostly coincidental. Also back in the days of film, it would have been a range of f-numbers, like between 8-16 or even 22 instead of one “peak”. Now since digital shows all flaws, there is more of a sense of a sweet spot in the f-number of lenses (that’s perhaps between 2 stops, center to edge).

        If you look at large format lenses, their recommended apertures are around 4 stops down.

  • nhaler

    …the samyang?!

    • Spy Black

      It’s funny that people for some reason continue to underestimate Samyang. I can’t wait to see what the 50mm is going to be like.

      • frank

        I remember selling Samyang back in the mid 90s, and they were utter garbage back then. So it’s great to see that they’ve built up their company over the years to a point where their lenses are besting those from Japan.
        Just like how Hyundai entered the market with low-end, cheap cars; I mean they were a real joke at the time. But now they built up the performance and quality to the point were the likes of Lexus are now taking notice.

        • Back then didn’t they have only mirror lenses and maybe really low quality f/11-type zooms?

      • flimflopwell

        Samyang produces excellent..highly rated lenses..not just about Nikon and Canon. Spy Black..I am hoping also..for a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2…That would be the focusing chip. Icing on the Cake. Excellent lenses…

        • Spy Black

          Unfortunately they’ve apparently halted development of their 50mm f/1.2, possibly due to the confirmed forthcoming release of the Sigma OTUS 50mm.

          This is unfortunate, perhaps they may revive the project down the line. If x amount of R&D went into it, I can’t imagine it just disappearing altogether.

  • Don Hogfan

    Compared to Nikon, Samyang has more sharpness, more transmission, has less chromatic aberrations, costs 1/3 of the price and because there is more distortion and slightly more vignetting “it lacks the outright performance of both the Nikkor and the Zeiss where it counts most for this type of lens” ? DxOMark you got to be kidding.

    • E

      I felt almost the same way and assumed that it must be more than that….right?

    • DuncanM

      Distortion is important on wides, and .8% is a pretty high degree. .5% isn’t mind blowing, but its manageable.Sharpness isn’t the be all, end all quality of a lens. If you can live with the Samyang that’s great, but don’t get mad because its not awarded best lens simply because you like it.

      • Don Hogfan

        When shooting landscapes I find sharpness and CA the most troubling areas for WA lenses whereas the 0.3% difference in distortion is insignificant. Look at the grid comparison in their tests again and tell me that 0.8% versus 0.5% is that much of a difference.
        If somebody wants quality and does not mind about price then I would agree that Zeiss is the choice, but for anybody else that does not need AF then Samyang cannot be beaten. At least until Sigma makes a 24mm 1.4 art.

      • The question isn’t so much the amount of distortion as the whether it can be corrected. The Samyang’s distortion is barrel and looks pretty easy to correct.

        • DuncanM

          And now you’ve just lost that very slight edge you had in sharpness. Sorry, no free lunches.

          • SPfan

            All you’re left with is a lens that’s less than half the price.

          • It’s not like the other lenses are perfect. If you’re going to correct for distortion, you’re going to correct for distortion. Look at the figures and there’s a sharpness loss even in the center, which implies you’ll get a similar sharpness loss for pretty much any degree of correction.

            The “correct” way to deal with this is start with a ludicrously high resolution sensor that outresolves any lens (e.g. like some Nokia phones have and the D800 is close) then correct for lens distortion (pixel bin if you like) and then save a compressed HDR image (“RAW” but not really). Guess what, the Samyang lens will be just fine then.

    • guest

      Good point. Distortion can be minimized or fixed in post, not so (lack of) sharpness. Or have I been wrong all this time?

    • You can’t see what DxO is talking about unless you go and review all of the data about each lens, not just this tiny summary.

      The worst thing about DxO reports like these is that they are extremely misleading versus full measurement data in many cases. The things to focus on are the global maps in sharpness measurements, CA, vignette, etc. They’ll show you how much of that frame is actually sharp and where at each aperture and focal length. This is way more revealing than the summarized scores.

      • ZachClueless

        A Smart Person..would not rely on just one website. He/She would test drive the lens..and find out through other website. A Smart Person would do that….Ms. is more easily for you to come in here to babble about nothing..than for you to show your own results…Right?

        • Retar

          a smart… person… would… be… able to…. use… witho..ut….


    • nick

      I also had the Samy 85 1.4. It was sharp enough but colours were weak and flare obvious.

      • Which presumably means Samyang’s problem is lens coatings (and possibly glass composition).

        • nick


    • Markus

      What I absolutely do not understand:
      They compared to 1.4 and the Zeiss at 2.0.
      It yould be interesting how the 1.4 lenses would perform at 2.0. Probalbly you would find out that the Zeiss simply is overpriced. In this case you would have to choose between low Price and AF (an a bit less distortion), but the Zeiss would be no good choice at all!

    • Mansgame

      Autofocus…I hear it’s catching on.

  • Spy Black

    As long as you can handle MF Samyang is the way to go. The 24 is actually one of their lesser performers. The 35 is their best. Most of them are chipped too.

    • Aeroengineer

      What have you heard about Samyang sample variation? My 14mm is great on my D800E, but that is the only one I’ve purchased, so maybe I just got lucky?

      • Spy Black

        I heard it can vary, so you have to put it through it’s paces to make sure have a good one. Nowadays however that applies to even Nikon and Canon, so it’s just par for the course in buying a lens today.

        I eventually want a 14 as well, that thing is amazing save for that distortion. Still killer for natural landscapes or editorial work.

        • guest

          Agree, out of my 7 lens, plus the ones I previously own, the Samyang 35mm 1.4, the only MF lens I own, is my favorite. Which is also the one attached to my D800 95% of the time. The samyang probably cost about 5% of the total cost of my lenses.

      • I also have the 14mm for my D600, and it’s the sharpest lens I own.

        For me, Samyang is a “brick and mortar” purchase. Go in, test it out, make sure it’s good, then buy it. It might cost more than an online purchase, but if they send a bad copy and you have to pay for return shipping, then it works out to be about the same.

    • MyrddinWilt

      I know that most scratches don’t actually affect the image, but I don’t want a lens that is chipped!

      Agree that the Samyang looks like the winner for MF performance and I really can’t see the attraction of the Zeiss. I guess they see a market for the Canon shooters and making a Nikon version doesn’t cost very much.

      • Joven


      • Spy Black

        I’m a fan of the Samyangs, but to their credit I believe the Zeiss are all metal construction. They’ll be around a longer time that any plastic lens today at any price. All my Ai Nikkors I’ve had for over three decades and work perfectly confirm this.

  • Mansgame

    lol Nikon all day. While you Samyamyamyamyang and Her Zeiss users are missing shots at f/1.4 while manually focusing in low light, the Nikon has already finished the shot and moved on and got a dozen other shots in perfect focus.

    • BernhardAS

      Well there are many applications where an AF is useful or indispensable. However there are equal number of situations where it is of no advantage, and some where it gets in the way and needs to be switched off. Whether additional image quality is worth the trade off to have noAF depends on what you do.

      From personal experience I can only recommend to rent a Zeiss for a couple of days and deliberately shoot it in the most shitty light you can find. That is where the huge gap between lenses will be visible. (And turn AWB off, deliberately or not, Nikon Cameras have a tendency to screw up AWB, when they detect a non chipped or non Nikon lens )

    • grant torres

      You do video? The AF advantage of the Nikkors would be negated, especially since they offer geared variations for focus pulls.

  • xt

    my samyang 85 1.4 is damn good!

  • For those feeling defensive, just remember, there is a LOT about lenses that DxO doesn’t bother measuring or even mentioning that contributes to total image quality besides outright sharpness or CA control. The reality is, all three of these lenses are good in one manner or another. I’ve shot with the Nikkor and all of the images I got looked really beautiful, particularly when there were defocused areas. It has such nice bokeh. Nothing here measures that.

    It’s just another friendly reminder that the best way to judge a lens is to look at high quality samples produced by that lens on the camera you may use it on.

    • marokero

      Ditto. I’ve been using the Nikkor since 2010, it’s a bit finicky with focus on my D3, pretty good on my D7100, and excellent on my wife’s D3000 (go figure!). But when the image is in focus, it’s beautiful to behold. I’m sure the Zeiss and Samyang bring their own benefits too, but in low light, with our “modern” OVF – no liveview, that’s cheating 😉 – it’s nearly impossible to manually focus exactly where you want it. I have a Katzeye split prism screen for my D7100, and even then it’s hit or miss at f/1.4. AF helps tremendously in low light.

      DXOMark tests their technical qualities, but not their aesthetic qualities. I wish we could get reviews that would incorporate DXOMark, Photozone, Dpreview, and SLRGear methodologies into a more complete review.

  • All I’m seeing is the AF module is ridiculously expensive in lenses. Or the more likely explanation, ridiculously marked up.

    Imagine if they released a Df with Manual focusing aid with CHEAP (and newly made) f1.4 lenses. BOOM there’s your budget FF with decent performance and you can actually say ‘Pure Photography’ without trying to hold back the laughter. BTW Nikon that’s my marketing idea for you. Give me some credit WHEN you copy it.

    Would be good if Fuji released cheap manual lenses as well since they already got the camera made for manual focusing.

    • O.

      What the Df needs is a focusing screen with a split prism circle and a microprism collar. Period.

      • Nah needs new prime lenses as well. Ai lenses are nice, but they could be a lot better especially in this day and age.

    • Joven

      So manual focus automatically makes it “pure photography”? People who cry for manual-focus-only lenses aren’t pure, they’re snobby and archaic.

      I’m not saying manual focus doesn’t have its place in photography, but to infer that it somehow makes your photography “more pure” is ridiculous. While we’re at it, why don’t we just take the digital sensor out of the Df?

      • because the Df was designed to mount Ai lenses… Sometimes I wonder if I should even bother replying.

        • preston

          Why are you assuming it’s the AF module that makes Nikon charge high prices? B&H still sells the Nikon 24mm f/2.8 D and the Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AIS brand new. One is $360 and the other is $440. Guess which one has autofocus. .

          • AF for 1.4 is not the same as 2.8. it can’t all be the glass, how can a small company like samyang charge so little

  • Tham

    I do not understand how DXOmark give equally score to both Nikon and Zeiss 24mm lenses since Zeiss lens has much better in terms of sharpness, transmission, and even CA controlling.

  • Good for Samyang for catching up and keeping up, I’d say.

  • lord eels

    anyone can make a clinically sharp prime. sigma has had sharp primes for decades. make a fast prime with a sweet rendering. that’s the hard part. let’s see the transition zone bokeh, the micro-contrast, and the skin tones. rendering is far more important than simple sharpness, primes shooters know this.

    • Guest

      Not anyone. Nikon can’t…

      • Michiel953

        I’m perfectly happy with my Nikkor 24/1.4, I think it renders superbly. What do you think is wrong with it? Do you use it?

        • Lots & Not Now.

          Heavy vignetting wide open, (so heavy that Nikon is really pushing designating it as a f1.4 at all) excessively high price……..

          • Michiel953

            Lord Eels discussed, rather sensibly I thought, “rendering”, which is a more complicated phenomenon than “sharpness”. Now you bring in “excessively high price”. So?
            Heavy vignetting wide open? Not to such an extent that it negatively impacts the rendering in situations where you would use it wide open.

            The rendering, wide open as well, is just beautiful. On my copy.

            But maybe you justw ant to complain loudly and sound smug?

            • Spy Black

              Rendering is a highly subjective call, however. One could easily argue the rendering on any one lens is better than any other lens. Every lens has it’s “look”, and for the most part they’re all quite good, simply different from each other.

              My 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S has a very unique look compared to my 50mm f/1.4 Ai Nikkor, at f5.6 both have excellent sharpness yet “render” quite different. Which is better? I like them both.

            • Michiel953

              Yes it is subjective, that’s the beauty of it. Numbers are interesting, but it’s how the final image looks that really matters.
              I had the 50/1.4G for a while and found it sharp but boring. 50 Makro-Planar much more interesting, with its faults. 58/1.4? Ahh…, now we’re talking! We’re talking rendering and faults!

            • Spy Black

              Many times however a lens’s “rendering” becomes an unquantifiable sales pitch to justify the exorbitant price and “false greatness” of a lens that may otherwise not truly justify it’s price or hype.

            • Michiel953

              Of course. The Makro-Planar was very good, the 35/2.0 Distagon I had for a while (D700 then) was beautiful, but its faults frustrating.
              In the end, reviews make for an interesting read, but I prefer to rely on my own eyesight, backed up a little by those interesting reviews.

            • lord eels

              keep telling yourself that

            • DuncanM

              Its called Jean ne se qua, and translates litteraly to “I know not what”. Yeah, its pretty much unquantifiable, but if it didn’t exist or was a sham Zeiss wouldn’t still be making lenses. Everyone would have seen by now that there really is no inherent quality that makes them worth more. I promise you we’re not all suffering mass delusion, the quality is there.

            • SteveDK

              C’est “je ne sais qua.”

            • Zeiss? Maybe. But Leitz would be a better example of pitching the unquantifiable. Boy, those guys can sure wax eloquent about why their lenses are so great.

            • Spy Black

              Yeah, I suppose we should put Leitz at the top of the heap, followed closely by Zeiss.

              I suppose we shouldn’t leave Hasselblad by their lonesome either.

            • It’s a Black Forest thing, I’m sure.

    • Which is to say, DxO is a bad thing. I can’t stress enough how ultimately destructive DxO could become. But, I’m an optimist and believe that the lens makers know better and will resist the temptation to build lenses that demonstrate high DxO scores at the expense of building lenses that render subjects well in terms of the more subjective qualities lord eels enumerates.

  • Del-Uks

    The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G wins !

  • Darkness

    Aaah, welcome to Nikon Rumors, the home for extreme sufferers of cognitive dissonance! google it…

  • TR_T-Rex

    If you read the entire DxOMark article you will see that this lens and Carl Zeiss give shaper image on D800 compared to D600 due to higher resolution. However the sharpness stays the same with Nikon 24mm 1.4G on both D600 and D800.

    Conclusion 1: only the best lenses provide more sharpness on D800 compared to D600.

    Based on just a couple of reviews of the lenses mounted on D800E, reviews, the sharpness increases for all lenses on D800E, but the better the lens, the more the increase.

    Conclusion 2: best lenses provide more sharpness than inferior ones o D800E compared to D800.


    if you require more resolving power because you have high MP camera (especially D800E) and you can get away with MF, I’d prefer Samyang over the others because the Nikkor resolves less and Carl Zeiss similar but for more money.

    will provide more sharpness on all three lenses, but (These are based not on my objective opinion, but on DxOMark tests)

  • Exm3racer

    I would like to see the comparison to the 24 PC lens

    • EnPassant

      Neither the Nikon 24mm PC-E or Canon EF 24mm TS-E lenses have yet been tested by DxOMark, but are previewed, so just wait and see!
      Other tests indicate the Canon shift lens being the better one, especially shifted. Stopped down to f 5.6-8 and unshifted they should be comparable to the Zeiss lens.

  • It seems strange to me that Samyang’s lens — which is sharper than, and otherwise pretty much neck-and-neck with two far more expensive lenses (one of which doesn’t AF) and far superior to a third — is described as “decent”.

    What this really says is that the idea that only a tiny handful of elite companies (Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Leica, and maybe Olympus) can produce great lenses is obsolete. I suspect that once lens designers routinely design lenses with post-processing in mind (e.g. deliberately relax design constraints that can easily be corrected in software — something Fujifilm and Nikon seem to be doing) and also do the corrections to RAW files (at least as an option) the camera/lens market could see some tectonic shifts. At very least it’s clear that Apple groks photography in ways that the camera makers seem not to (as witnessed by the auto-white-balancing flash on the iPhone 5s). As Thom Hogan recently pointed out Apple is building its camera team (e.g. they hired a guy who was able to get 20fps at full resolution out of the iPhone 4).

  • Saffron Blaze

    I like gear too, but these debates are so tedious. I read about 4 or 5 comments then gave up.

  • EnPassant

    While this is a page for Nikon it is very interesting to make the same comparison (on 5DIII) for Canon with the same lenses, only the Nikkor AF-S 24/1.4 replaced with the Canon EF 24/14:

    Clearly, acording to DxOMark (but also other tests) the Canon 24/1.4 lens is the sharpest 24/1.4 lens in the central area at f/.4. However it never reach as high sharpness at the edges as the other lenses even stopped down. (Here compared with AF-S 24/1.4 on D610 for more similar MP sensors.):

    What is even more interesting is the performance of the EF versions of the Zeiss 25/2 and Samyang 24/1.4.

    The difference in sharpness of the Zeiss on Nikon versus Canon is staggering. The Nikon version of the lens tested seem be a class better on practically every aperature tested:

    A case of sample variation or the Zeiss lens working better with the Nikon sensors?

    Let’s take a look at the Samyang results. At some aperatures shapness is better o Nikon on others Canon, so overall pretty equal. But look at the distribution of the sharpness at f/1.4:

    The lens on Nikon is sharper in the central area while the lens on Canon is sharper in a ring around the central area. Again one could think these are results from two completely different lenses.

  • FlimFlopwell

    I would take Samyang…I have the 35mm 1.4 is it Excellent and crystal clean and clear..and freaking sharp. I need a 24 to capture wider landscape shots. Samyang cost factor…plus one point behind the $1900 NIkon…yep it is crystal clear.

    • lord eels

      wrong hobby.

      photography is not for cheap/poor people.


      • rafakoy

        buddy, if you can’t do it with a Samyang… you can’t do it.

        • Michiel953

          You’re so wrong. Everyone knows expensive is better.

        • Jorge

          Don’t feed the fool

      • [Nasty class-war-inciting, furious response.]

        [Long exposition of true nature of photography and art and blah, blah blah. List of things I had to do in the 80’s to support my art. Condemnation of the Lunar.]

        [Conciliatory gesture toward people who can afford the state of the art, and therefore create trickle-downs.]

        [Reiteration of class-war incitation.]

      • saywhatuwill

        You’re right. Never has been for the poor. I remember getting odd jobs to pay for photography. One type of job lasted 25 years, but man, I was able to afford anything I wanted in photography.

  • Naval Gunfire

    As useful as auto-focus is, it isn’t the be all and end all. I love using my 24mm PC-E, not one for the spray and spray types though.

  • broxibear

    I think this might be the P8000 patent…

  • Jurppa

    dxomark.blah, Best performing lens? Depends on what is important to your photography: price? handling? color? bokeh? focus? sharpness? or something else? For me Nikon is unbeaten.

  • saywhatuwill

    I wonder how that autofocus and f/1.4 is on the Carl Zeiss? I wonder how well the Samyang performs in the rain?

    Seems Nikon has some important positives going for it.

  • Back to top