FX WA prime?

[pisduck]

if I want to spend $2k+ on a lens, it will be the 24-70mm. the 14-24mm is too difficult to use and has exposed front element.... I carry my equipment on my travels and I usually just sling my camera without the lens cap on and move around... I would be too paranoid over the 14-24 safety.....

Best is a light 24mm prime though.

 

[lsisaxon]

the performance of the lens is pretty ok except for the EXTREME corners.

Isisaxon or anyone, can you post a better crop of the corner performance of the sigma 24mm f1.8? right at the extreme corners. At maybe f2.8? If it is good at f2.8, then I may want to get this lens instead of the nikon.

f/2.0

f/2.8

f/5.6

Looks better than the 24/2.8 you posted but IMO not a lot better.

 

[lsisaxon]

the performance of the lens is pretty ok except for the EXTREME corners.

Isisaxon or anyone, can you post a better crop of the corner performance of the sigma 24mm f1.8? right at the extreme corners. At maybe f2.8? If it is good at f2.8, then I may want to get this lens instead of the nikon.

MTF...

Nikkor 24/2.8

Sigma 24/1.8

The Nikkor is sharper at the centre and then quality falls sharply beyond 15mm from the centre, so I would expect it to be better than the Sigma over DX.

Beyond 20mm from centre (the extreme corner), the 10 lines/mm meridional and sagittal traces for the Nikkor deviates so much which explains the strong aberrations at the extreme corner.

 

[David Kwok]

Indeed the only sharp one 14-24/2.8 :thumbsup:

17-35 sucks at the corner when wide open. It is only sharp at corners at f/5.6, but even so, it's not as good as 14-24/2.8.

I just tried these 2 lens 2 days ago, deciding to go with one with filters option but not as wide or wider but no filter open. Actually can put filter, but it's a hack job. I tried the cokin filter hand held infront of the 14-24, it seems alright.

I think just as bad.. The WA that gives good corner to corner performance on FX would be the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. I heard that even the 17-35/2.8 is not as good.

 

[David Kwok]

if I want to spend $2k+ on a lens, it will be the 24-70mm. the 14-24mm is too difficult to use and has exposed front element.... I carry my equipment on my travels and I usually just sling my camera without the lens cap on and move around... I would be too paranoid over the 14-24 safety.....

Best is a light 24mm prime though.

I suppose you cannot compared between 24-70 and 14-24. It's not apple to apple comparison becoz IMHO, they are built for different purpose. 24-70 is an excellent medium zoom on FX which I will use to cover those events shot and normal perspective scenes. 14-24, similar usage to Tokina 11-16 on DX, is best for landscapes and some candid shots to exaggerate your subject and proportionate distances.

Of course if you can only buy one, I find 24-70 should be first obtained unless... unless... the photographer is a lover for landscape and nothing else... then please get only the 14-24

 

[yyD70S]

On your FX, the 24-70mm f2.8 is about the best $2000 wide-to-medium zoom you could pamper yourself with.

Until Nikon upgrade their collection of (esp) wide-angle primes, at the focal length of 24mm, it's between 14-24mm & 24-70mm -- since you are concerned about corner softness.

if I want to spend $2k+ on a lens, it will be the 24-70mm. the 14-24mm is too difficult to use and has exposed front element.... I carry my equipment on my travels and I usually just sling my camera without the lens cap on and move around... I would be too paranoid over the 14-24 safety.....

Best is a light 24mm prime though.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

No matter what lens you buy, there's always a sweet spot for shooting. If I'm not wrong, the sweet spot for the 24mm should be f/8. Look at the MTF charts and you will understand.

Also, the earlier lenses are designed for film. I believe one of the guys here have already explained. The digital sensors are not so good at handling light coming from an angle. That's probably the reason why Nikon marketed the term, FX lense. 'cos they probably know that the older film lenses will not work very well on the FX sensors. Setting the aperature at the sweet spot will help. On the other hand, the older film lenses work very well with the DX sensors.

If you are shooting at 24mm, which is a wide angle lens, most will shoot at small aperature to get an even sharpness across. Unless you have something out-of-the-box that you are trying.

 

[doom102938]

Lol, I would"nt worry about scratches on the 14-24mm. Because its a UWA. A small scratch wouldnt affect picture quality.

And its the only(if i am not wrong) uwa lens(yes better than primes!) that is very sharp and suffers little vignetting at f/2.8. So my choice is that. Oh its a Nikkor "pro" lens, so it has the added benefit of having excellent build quality and weather and dust sealing. Its also a zoom lens meaning its easier to frame(not the point with UWA).

Buy it only if you can overlook its short comings.