Nikon 24mm f/1.8G ED quick lens review

The new Nikon 24mm f/1.8G ED lens should start shipping tomorrow. Here is a quick review by Marcel Bihr:

I had the opportunity to test the new Nikon 24mm f/1.8G ED lens. According to the Nikon guys, my copy actually was a pre-production model, but very close to a production model. I am considering this lens as a lightweight walk-around lens on both DX and FX bodies (FX for landscape, DX for cities and street photography).

I was impressed by the lightweight of the lens. I think the build quality, or at least the feel in my hands, is slightly better than the 85mm f/1.8 version - the lens looks rather compact and small.

D750 center 100 percent f1.8 color fringes DSC_0898
Picture quality at f/1.8 (see above image): wide open you can clearly see color fringes on hard contrasts areas. Overall sharpness is OK. Stopped down, sharpness increases as expected and is in my opinion very good at f/2.8. The color fringes are gone at f/4. Slight distortion is visible but for me this is not a problem:

D750 f1.8 DSC_0907
The lens is quite resistant to ghosting:

D700 f16 flare resistance MBI_0085_01
Sun-stars are almost invisible (100% crop of the one above):

D700 f16 100 percent sunstar MBI_0085
I like how out-of-focus areas, including bright spots are rendered:

D7000 f1.8 bokeh DSC_5870
and the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus is smooth:

D7000 f1.8 close focus bokeh DSC_5871
I was also impressed by the minimum focus distance:

D750 Close Focus f1.8 DSC_0900
I had the impression that the lens hood almost touched the car (there were about 5cm between the car and the front of the hood).

What I like about the Nikon 24mm f/1.8G ED lens:

  • Lightweight
  • Good image quality
  • Feels good on both FX and DX bodies
  • Close focus distance and performance

What I don't like about the Nikon 24mm f/1.8G ED lens:

  • High price

What I don't care:

  • Distortion
  • Color fringes

What I could not test:

  • Night shots of both cities and milky way


The lens meets my expectations and I'm sure it will fit nicely in my lens selection. I will buy the lens in the next few months, although the price is more than I would like to pay.

This entry was posted in Nikon D300s, Nikon Lenses, [NR] Reviews and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Gustavo

    Front focus in the first image…

    • TheInfinityPoint

      Yup. Whether on purpose or not we don’t know. But at least that explains the color fringing, so we should discount his conclusion on that.

      • Gustavo

        The green fringes and soft look are explained by the front focus… i’m sure that this lens can be waaay better than this.

        • Eric Calabros

          at f/8 it will be way better than this 😉
          Who shoots landscape wide open other than for testing purpose?

      • Marcel

        As you have seen, something is out of focus – but I don’t know what is in Focus in the whole image. I was uncertain whether I should include the first picture in the review – however: I have two such shots, both captured with direct sunlight on the subject in some area – one from a D700 and one from a D750. I have more shots at f1.8 from these cameras and a D7000 which do not show this issue but they have less direct sunlight.
        My conclusion was (as written in the review) ‘I don’t care about color fringes’; but I wanted to show you that you can get such worst case images.

        • Wernerg

          It’s not the fringing that is so disturbing to me as the difference in sharpness from f/1.8 to f/2.8. f/1.8 looks unusable for any serious picture anywhere in the frame. If this a effectively an f2.8 lens then is the older “D” really not a better lens at 1/2 price.

      • Captain Megaton

        No we should not discount it, since in shots with high contrast elements just in front or behind the focal plane green/purple bloom will be ugly and distracting. Just because one element is in or out of focus doesn’t mean the others have to be.

    • Carleton Foxx

      I can’t even figure out what is supposed to be in focus in the first image. But color fringing is color fringing.

      • Gustavo

        I got this type of CA with all my lenses… the purple and green fringes at the out of focus area is absolutely normal.

        • HF

          Not with an Otus or 135 Zeiss APO 😉

    • Squirty Sonyboy

      I’ll wait for the Otus

  • TheInfinityPoint

    Seems like this lens has a very similar appearance and performance to the 20mm f/1.8 (which I love). The 20mm can also focus extremely close, I measured about 5 cm from the front element.

    • Agree, the 20mm f/1.8 is AWESOME, I received mine a month ago and I’m in love with it, an (almost)ultra-wide angle that is fast and sharp wide open is something you usually don’t find, great lens (sorry for the OT)

  • Paul H.

    Nice, pithy review. Would enjoy more such quick reads here…

  • saywhatuwill

    That first photo reminds me of using lenses made for film. It looked fine from far away but once you pixel peep there’s this haze that doesn’t look right.

    • Captain Megaton

      For a 24mm wide open at f/1.8 I’d say that level of fuzzy edges / low contrast / smear is actually pretty good, or at least completely normal. “For digital” doesn’t do away with that stuff, its all part of making a very fast wide angle lens.

  • Spy Black

    I wonder it Tamron will release a 24mm f/1.8 VC…

    • fanboy fagz

      I want an 85mm first. tamron or sigma, I dont really care, but priced nicely like all the other primes at $900. preference for 1.4 over 1.8 with VC. their VC is the best in the biz IMO. prefer the shallow dof of 1.4

      • Spy Black

        I’d like to see them put out a 20mm f/1.8 VC myself.

    • Considering that Tamron did a 35 and 45 at the same exact time, there’s a slight chance we’ll see primes in pairs again. I vote 24mm f/1.8 VC and 85mm f/1.8 VC at the same time, in 6-12 months. And if Tamron is putting more effort into eliminating things like coma and field curvature than Sigma or Nikon has been, I’ll be the first in line for a 24, 45, and 85…

      • fanboy fagz

        that 45 is on my radar. will wait till it drops a little and gets a few units sold. I never buy a lens right away. just to be safe of any bugs. dont bring down with your 6-12 months. wth! I wanted something for christmas. maybe sigma will deliver.

  • Captain Megaton

    24mm has never been a high point of the Nikkor prime lens lineup, going right back to the Nikkor-N auto. This new lens … looks to be in that overall line: Some distortion, some CA, nice close focus, pretty decent bokeh.

    But it is f/1.8 instead of f/2.8, which is nothing to sniff at. Especially for the price.

    • BVS

      Also about 1/2 the weight of the Sigma, if weight is important.

      • fanboy fagz

        the sigma is a professional level build and 1.4 aperture so more glass makes things heavier. its only $100 more and its only 40grams more than the nikon 1.4g, which sells for $1400 more.

        • The unfortunate thing is, I’ve seen plenty of Sigma Art glass with serious issues due to abuse, so I question the actual structural longevity of the lenses versus these Nikon 1.8 G’s. I honestly don’t know if all the added heft is actually “pulling its weight” so to speak when it comes to making the lens more indestructible. Still, it is a professionally sharp and solidly built lens, and if you’re just madly in love with 24mm as a wide FL, as some photojournalists / wedding shooters are, …then you may even prefer the heft of the Sigma, and wouldn’t “mess around” with f/1.8…

          • fanboy fagz

            “, I’ve seen plenty of Sigma Art glass with serious issues due to abuse”

            what you say is hearsay. from a pros perspective who shoots many weddings, I see just the opposite. I see more and more pros buying sigma art lenses. I see nonstop posts on facebook groups from people raving about their art lenses and people happy as hell with theirs. so you can say one thing, but ive seen otherwise. id take the fantastic build of the sigma over the cheap plastic of the nikon anyday. I have no issues with heft. I carry nikons 2.8 zooms on me with D3 D3s and D4 cameras for 12 hour weddings. but im very fit and prefer heft for better balance with the big cameras.,
            the art lenses sell like crazy. I know the importer in my country brought more than 120 units and it sold within a week. I know because I posted a picture in the sigma post below on the NR page of the sigma on sale. he said he had a hard time finding one. the importer told him first batch sold out very quickly.

            im not a backpacker and if I was, it wouldnt be all the time. just for the occasional trip here and there. that wouldnt be enough for me to see the very clear bottom line that the sigma makes sense in every way. heavy and big like the nikon 24 1.4G but hell $1400 less and better IQ, theres no better option. if the nikon was at $1200 id still go with the sigma because of build and IQ. and IQ is bottom line. and the art lenses just smoke anything nikon makes IQ wise. and the new tamron lenses do as well. its about frikin time. where the hell were they till now.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              I have no basis to refute anything you’ve said but it doesn’t seem like you’re countering his claim of damage due to abuse. It’s very possible that all those pros love their lenses but haven’t put them through anything that would lead to damage.
              Just pointing out the gap in your argument.

            • fanboy fagz

              read above, hes all fluff and no credibility. anyone can come and comment what they want. doesnt make it true. and here, im certain its bullshit.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              “anyone can come and comment what they want.” That’s certainly true. You’ve done the same thing as have all of us.

              Again, I’m not disputing your position, only your argument. If you want to dismiss his evidence as anecdotal, that’s entirely valid (to my way of thinking which is often in err), but you rebutted giving anecdotal evidence of your own. Neither argument is compelling but definitely interesting.

              Unlike you, I don’t have the benefit of being certain about anything so don’t feel like you owe me or my comments any consideration.

            • fanboy fagz

              I cant send pm’s through the discus system. have some important info.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Use online translation software to convert it to Kanji. They don’t work very well and rarely get reverse translations even close but I’ll get the gist of it.
              Barring that, I have no ideas.

            • Wow, now it sounds like I’m about to be accused of being a spy for Canon or Sony or something. What “important info” could you possibly have that can’t be shared publicly?

            • I don’t understand, are you asserting that it isn’t possible for a Sigma Art lens to break under heavy use, because they’re magically indestructible due to their heft, or are you just saying that I’m a liar, and whether or not Sigma Art lenses break isn’t even part of the discussion anymore?

              I’m trying to have an intelligent discussion with folks who might trust and believe me. You’re running around looking for dispites where they don’t need to exist.

            • I’m definitely not talking about something I heard on the internet. I’m talking about multiple co-workers who do weddings full-time and have had significant issues with Sigma’s oldest f/1.4 Art lens, the 35 1.4. I suspect / fear it is only a matter of time before the same stories start popping up about the 50 1.4 and then the 24 1.4, but I do hope not.

              On at least three lenses among myself and friends, the rear mount / barrel has simply loosened and practically fallen off. On other lenses I’ve seen general abuse damage exactly identical to any of the other lesser (or greater) lenses in Nikon’s lineup. As in, I’ve actually been the person sending these lenses to Sigma and paying for their repairs.

              I’ve also noticed that Sigma has done a very poor job of engineering the rear area to protect the rear element; and unlike almost all Nikon lenses, when focus is racked to a certain point the glass is extremely vulnerable to scratches. My current copy has so many scratches (just faint rub marks, from being in contact with soft surfaces inside my bag) on the rear element that autofocus has completely stopped working. (And don’t even get me started on the AF consistency / accuracy issues the 35 has.)

              As Patrick said below, I’m sure that tons of pros are loving their Sigma Art glass. I will continue to love my 35, and maybe add an 85 Art to my bag someday. My point was simple: I merely don’t think all the added heft is directly, proportionally equal to a certain amount of added strength or reliability. That’s a pretty simple assertion, one that doesn’t need any context other than my personal experience with lenses that have literally fallen apart, or stopped working, due to abuse from full-time work.

            • fanboy fagz

              would love to see SOME pictures of the rear scratched element please.
              because my 85 1.4 AIS has tons on it as well from protruding so much. its an old lens though.

              you can easily post them here.
              would love to see a video showing the AF has stopped working.

              how you get these marks I dont know. when I change lenses I put a cap on and thats it. that doesnt say about build or reliability. that just says irresponsible handling.

            • Irresponsible handling, sure, but the fact that almost EVERY Canon lens in existence has a well-recessed rear element is still a factor in a system’s usability. You can abuse one more than the other. Call it a matter of irresponsibility, but it’s still a notable issue.

              The third-party lenses however are noticeably worse than Nikon, a greater % of the time. I’ve noted at least two third party lenses now that, when you look at the Nikon mount version, the rear element actually protrudes PAST anything else on the back of the lens, leaving it extremely exposed even for the most careful of users. (The Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 being one of them, so it’s not just Sigma)

              Not sure why you’d like to see pictures of my rear elements. If you’re collecting photos of multiple lenses for some sort of informative article / project, then I’d be happy to oblige. However if you just want me to prove what I’m claiming, then sorry, I won’t make time for that.

            • fanboy fagz

              “”However if you just want me to prove what I’m claiming, then sorry, I won’t make time for that.””

              yeeep, its all about credibility to your comments. so youre just another poster who makes things up on the net.

            • …Said the person who posts anonymously, to the person who links to their personal and professional work frequently.

            • neversink

              Hey fanboy – Why are you defending sigma so much. Getting paid????? Just do a search on Problems with Sigma lenses or problems with Sigma Art lenses and you will get hundreds of hits. The more you attack people the way you do about their complaints, the more suspicious I become about your objectivity.

            • fanboy fagz

              I like what theyre doing. better than nikon. unfortunately no not getting paid. If I was Id have no issue saying it. unlike andrew who silently would post positive posts about nikon but denied being a nikon rep.

              how about you post links to the “hundreds” of links. im curious. from what I saw, theyre built well, perform very well and theyre priced reasonably..except the 50mm which should sell for $600 flat.

            • Having both the 50 and 35 art and putting them through their paces, I can also attest to the AF consistency problems of the Sigmas. When they grab proper focus, it is tack sharp at 1.4. But getting there takes more tries than the Nikons. The AF inconsistency is about my only gripe with the 50 and 35 Art lens…. it’s a love/hate thing.

            • Thank you for sharing your experience.

              While many online discussions usually don’t go further than “buy the Sigma USB dock, that’s what it’s for!” …unfortunately there is a huge difference between a simple front/back focus issue, and a complete lack of AF consistency. The latter is the case with my current 35 Art, but hopefully when I finally have a week or two off from wedding photography, I can send both my lens and my body in to Sigma for them to repair and fully calibrate. I will be certainly writing up my findings, if they are notably positive or negative.

              Sigma is showing a ton of promise with their Art glass, but its amazing image quality is only part of the equation. And if you consider every aspect of consistency, reliability, longevity, support, etc. then I think there is still something to be said for a good Nikon “flagship” lens, or a Canon L lens. (Not that both aren’t over-priced quite a bit, though!)

            • neversink

              And their auto focus motor failure is a big complaint also.

            • outkasted

              what cameras are you using?

            • Have been using the sigma art lenses with the Nikon D4s.

            • outkasted

              I believe that many of the users that have been having problems with the Sigma Art may be those with newer models. But I swear this thing on my D3/D700 sings so sweet.

            • neversink

              I don’t know any pros that buy Sigma or Tamron.
              Just do a search for Problems with Sigma Art lenses and you will find plenty of complaints. You gets what you pays for.

            • fanboy fagz

              so if dont know any that means no pro does, correct?

              youre the spokesperson for pros around the world?
              you document what they have, what they buy what they feel is good gear? you “gets ” ripped off when buying nikon. overpriced plastic lenses. that POS 58mm 1.4G is the ripoff of the century.

            • outkasted

              I totally Agree! I myself have preached from the rooftops. My Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art Review on BnH has the best rating based on feedback. I use my Sigma on D700 and D3 bodies. I can speak only to these two bodies as I still believe they were Nikons best release as far as camera bodies are concerned. (call me bias).

            • Randy Levine

              Sigma is a sub-par lens. ‘Art’ is nothing more than marketing BS… The image quality is NOT better than the newer Nikon 24mm 1.8G ED. Sigma has big quality control issues between copies and cannot be trusted… Nikon figured out a long time ago that lenses do not need to be made out of metal to be durable. In fact, modern plastics infused with reinforcing carbon and/or other materials are actually stronger than metal. Nikon was wise enough to realize that it’s customers aren’t hammering nails with their lenses and that weight considerations are paramount… Also, Nikon offers superior coatings, proprietary lens elements and far tighter manufacturing tolerances…. Most internet ‘reviews’ are either governed by partnerships, invalid testing procedures, or ignorance.

            • fanboy fagz

              Andrew? is that you?

          • neversink

            There appears to me, to be people who are either paid by Sigma on this site or ignorant of the problems these lenses have. All they need to do is to a search on Problems with Sigma Art lenses…. Or Problems with Sigma lenses….

            • Having personally met quite a handful of people who work directly for these companies, and seeing how they market their equipment to industry folks, I think it is highly unlikely that there are secret “fake fanboys” out there getting paid by companies to fight against any nay-sayers or whistle-blowers. There are plenty of real, die-hard crazies out there who will do that job for them. To spend money on something that society is already generating thanks to consumerism, brand affinity, elitism, etc. would be a waste of marketing $$$ IMO.

              But, you’re right about the 2nd suspicion. Folks just feel personally invested in the reputation of something they’ve purchased, so they go around trying to be that items’ knight in shining armor. Maybe they hope it will love them back?

              I’ve been doing this too long to care about brand affinity. I’ve had the good fortune of being able to shoot with and get to know pretty much every camera system currently in existence, and honestly I’ve settled on just being a photography geek in general. If I had the money, I’d own all systems. I cannot call myself a fan of any one system, or company, because each has its strengths and flaws.

              In the long run, I hope this helps me give better advice to folks whose trust I can earn by consistently giving an honest opinion without sugar coating.

      • I’d consider it important for some folks like myself, since I do a lot of backpacking with multiple wide, fast lenses. (And multiple bodies, whenever possible!)

        To save that much weight, I’d gladly go with f/1.8 instead of f/1.4 as long as this lens’ vignetting is much lower, and corner sharpness is equal or better.

        As it stands, as an astro-landscape photographer if I were really in need of f/1.4, I’d get the Rokinon 24 1.4 anyways. Much cheaper, and the lowest coma of any 24 1.X ever AFAIK.

        Then again, if I’m going to “compromise” on aperture in order to save weight, I’d pick the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G instead of this, nine times out of ten. Especially on a 36 MP sensor; I can bump into 1.2x crop mode and still get ~24 MP, which is plenty for astro-landscape timelapse photography.

        • Patrick O’Connor

          It sounds like you’ve been using the Nikon 20mm for a while now. I asked you about coma, shortly after it came out. Do you still find it negligible for astrophotography, then?

          I really want to get something for this but am torn between the Nikon 20mm, which would also give me a very good autofocusing WA; the Rokinon 14mm, giving me 14mm which I’m currently lacking; and the Rokinon 24mm, which is arguably the best for avoiding star trails but not much else IMO. Or should I consider something else? Since I would only be using it for astro, rarely, I’d like to get as much other use as possible.

          • I only reviewed the 20mm briefly, but when I did, I did do 5-10K timelapse photos plus a bunch of other various stuff. Since my day job is weddings and my hobby is astro-landscapes, it’s a pretty wide gamut. A co-worker bought the lens and I’ve since had the opportunity to post-produce a few thousand more images made with it.

            TLDR; if you’re going to shoot mostly stopped down even a tiny bit, the 20 is fantastic. It’s just phenomenal.

            However, if you’re into astro-timelapses, and plan to shoot tons of stuff wide open at 1.8, then yeah it could be better. It’s great, and the only other 20mm that is faster than f/2.8 (the Sigma EX) is abysmal at 1.8. Honestly, considering what Tamron just started doing and considering what Sigma is currently doing, …if you’re still on the fence then I’d wait. Even though coma is impressively low, overall sharpness is harmed due to vignetting, field curvature, and a general lack of sharpness.

            I’d wait and see what Tamron has up its sleeve in the ~24mm range. Or maybe Sigma will follow up their 24-35 with an 18-24 f/2. That, I’d lug anywhere even if it were 2 lbs!!! But yeah I dunno, it just sounds like Tamron might be putting more energy into the aspects of field curvature and coma and vignetting. But maybe it’s just marketing speak for “we’re gonna try just as hard as the others to make good primes”

            Do keep an eye out for a review of the Tamron 35, though. I’m very interested in reviewing that one; it could potentially replace my Sigma if it’s good enough.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Thanks. I guess I’ll be waiting then.

      • Captain Megaton

        I think weight is important, yes. f/1.4 on FX is over-rated. Having a light lens to carry around is short-changed.

        That said, I’d be comparing this 1.8G with the Sigma pretty closely before buying.

        • neversink

          I don’t know. I have o problem carrying my 24mm f/1.4 lens around and it is great for astro photography.

  • Russell Ferris

    IF! If I wanted a 24mm prime the sigma would still have my money.

    • fanboy fagz

      I agree. I dont see any logic to buy this nikon lens.

      the sigma 24mm art is $100 more. better build, better IQ than both 24mm nikkors. same weight more or less as the nikon 24 1.4G.

      • Russell Ferris

        I’ve got the 24-35 f2 coming in the mail, paid a cool $1300 Canadian though. Hopefully this lens is all it’s reviews say it is.

        • fanboy fagz

          worked with a pro at a wedding last week. he had the 24-35 ART. the guy was on cloud 9. my best friend, another pro photog has the lens as well says its amazing. he says it does have vignetting at f/2 but its fine for him since he adds a light vignette anyways. he says he went crazy with tons of tweaking you can do with the USB dock.

      • HF

        Better IQ? So far, what do we really know? Some people dislike the weight of the Sigma and lack of weather sealing. The price will come down and we have a choice, which is fine with me. After some serious tests, I decide which to buy.

        • fanboy fagz

          if you need light weight and weather sealing the sigma is not for you. for me, IQ is first and foremost. notice all the expensive zooms and primes have no compromise on size weight build and most times, price. look at all the 2.8 zooms. theyre huge. all 1.4 primes are heavy. the nikons are less because their plastic build. look at the otus lenses. theyre HUGE! so are their prices.

          • HF

            Yes, but so far we don’t know the exact difference in IQ. For me IQ is important, too. But there is a threshold beyond which I consider better IQ to be not important for getting the shot or delivering pics to clients. Otherwise, I would need to spend all my money for the Otus lenses. Would our clients see a difference? Unlikely. Most of the faster lenses and zooms’ sizes are determined by aperture diameter and aren’t that huge at all. The Otus lenses are exceptions for me.

        • outkasted

          the weight is really not a big deal. It really feels awesome on my D3.

          • fanboy fagz

            great balance. when you use a heavy lens with bodies like D750/800/10 with no grips it gets front heavy and your pinky gets fatigued after time. it would ok with a 50 or 35 prime but not with a 24-70G . I prefer the heft with big body and lens. nikon sigma, it doesnt matter. it just feels better in my hand. less so around my neck after the 10th hour of a wedding hahaha.

      • Gustavo

        The Nikon’s 24mm 1.4G is a little softer than the sigma but the bokeh, subject separation, color rendition and the natural vignette together brings me a FANTASTIC look that the Sigma never does.

        The focusing accuracy is another point… the Nikon version is always dead on here, unlike the cheap Sigma 24.

        Sadly, today, people worry about sharpness and CA more than overall look of the image.

        • Andrzej Lukowiec

          … but Nikkor 24mm f1.8G isn’t always dead on focus (see picture no 1)

          • true

            This is just speculation, we don’t know the reason why first picture is oof. It could be the photographer or the lens isn’t AF finetuned (if it happened to be shot with wide aperture, that’s possible reason)

        • outkasted

          I agree although I have not used the Nikon 35mm/1.4 and the Nikon 24mm/1.4., the cost alone deterred me. Now I do posessthe Nikon 50mm/1.4 and love the bokeh etc. but OMG at 1.4 I’ve tried my best to squeeze out sharpness. but this is just it …I get that 1.4 for low light and sharpness as much as possible. The Sigma delivers big time!!! Bokeh is awesome on the 35mm Siggy and kills in the sharpness category and then there is price……well nuff said. 🙂

      • Russell Ferris

        For weather sealing and abuse I have a drain plug 50mm f1.8 afs

        • Andrzej Lukowiec

          50mm f1.8 AF-S is not weather sealed… The rubber ring is to prevent for the oil to come out… 😉

          • Russell Ferris

            I’ve soaked that lens inside and out and caked it up a few times, there aren’t many beater lenses on the market.

      • true

        Sigma is heavier, probably worse bokeh, colder colors than nikon. It’s probably little bit sharper, but it’s known that Sigma’s 24mm is not same league as their 35mm or 35mm art lenses.

        • fanboy fagz

          go over to photographylife and see nasims review. the sigma smokes all nikon primes straight from open aperture. a zoom smoking nikons primes.

          OH! BTW, they pin the zoom against the nikon 24 1.4! not 1.8 and it rapes it.

  • verytoxic

    Ugly lens, thats all I could say. I would not pay more than $100 for it, for its ugliness factor.

    • Patrick O’Connor

      Not saying it is but, if it were everything and a bag of chips, you wouldn’t buy it due to its appearance!?

    • true

      How is the lens ugly? It’s a lightweight wide prime. Weights significantly less than sigma, and probably has warmer color rendition and better bokeh.

  • Bengt Nyman

    Forget it.

    • true

      This is probably very good lens. I’m betting it’s better than 20 1.8

  • Coma test, PLZ!!!

  • Bojan

    Full review of lens on also gallery with full resolution photos.

  • Jp

    I think the real question is, does this Nikon 24mm worth his price compare to the sigma 24mm 1.4 ?

    • true

      It’s much lighter, probably better bokeh and warmer colors.

  • true

    Probably great lens, kind of wish I had this instead of the 20 1.8 . But I suppose 20 1.8 might have its uses too

  • Albert Yang

    From test charts; it seems sharper @f1.8 than the 28mm F1.8g (which I have). MTF graphs seem to confirm that as well.

  • Back to top