Owners of both Nikon 24mm 1.4G and 35mm 1.4G

[juspoli]

Thank you for all your comments. I think I will hold on to the 35 for now as I find it very useful and always on my D700. Can try my friends 24 for some more time (hope he lends meü) and see how useful it would be for me and how different it would be from my 35 before making the decision..

As for 28mm 1.8, I agree its a value for money lens given how it performs. However I'm leaning more on the 24 so I can use for landscape as well. It will also be closer to my 35 so not considering for now.

 

[juspoli]

I had both earlier this year, sold the 35 for some cash ( not lost a $$ on it ) plan to buy it again later this year.

That said the performance of the 24 out shines the 35 by a mile - far sharper and just better overall ( reviews confirm this ).

The 24 is THE keeper out of all my lenses, for me it's a 1 lens solution should I ever want "just 1 lens".

Hi DFive, thanks for the comment. You obviously prefer the 24, but just curious why you plan to purchase back the 35 again after selling? Don't you find owning both lens a waste considering some say focal difference is only a matter of 2 steps back/forward? Thanks

 

[surrephoto]

Both fantastic lenses and both solid performers.

In terms of sharpness the 24G features better center performance but corner performance lose to 35G. 35G is quite even across the frame.

In terms of application the 24G & 35G can be vastly different. The 35G will be more forgiving when it comes to perspective distortion and it is my standard lenses for group photos & wedding photo-journalism. The 35G can still be used for certain types of half-body couple photos whilst the 24G will have a hard time. However the 24G (At f2 and larger apertures) can give that oomph which no other lens can offer... let's call it the "wide-angle bokeh" look. I often used the 24G during wedding gatecrash & wedding farewell (where you need the f/1.4 & wideness to capture the moment when the bride hugs her best gf etc). The 35G is my bread-and-butter lens but the 24G is the lens that can make that photo, and thus my work, stand-out from the crowd.

That said, I have sold my 24G ages ago as I cannot justify the price-usage frequency ratio. Please treat both with dignity and respect and use them both for their individual strengths and see which you like more!

 

[Dfive]

Hi DFive, thanks for the comment. You obviously prefer the 24, but just curious why you plan to purchase back the 35 again after selling? Don't you find owning both lens a waste considering some say focal difference is only a matter of 2 steps back/forward? Thanks

Hmmm..... not 'exactly' 2 steps but I'll not get into that...... for me its another tool in the bag - thats all.

( I sold and only lost $20 to fund a very good watch - I got a great deal on )

End of day the Nikkor 24mm is the sharpest thing around at 24mm.... sharper or equal to the Leica 24 1.4 in fact ( a $6000 lens !! ) so for me it's a bargain lens.

 

[sjackal]

24 and 35 are two very different focal lengths. They are not close.

 

[Dfive]

24 and 35 are two very different focal lengths. They are not close.

So agree...

 

[chanzdad]

I only have the 24mm F1.4 but not the 35mm F1.4. I do have the other 35F2 from nikkor. After comparing my usage on the 35mm vs 24mm, my own style of shooting, i prefer the performance from the 24mm. reason is the perspective from the lens which is difference from the 35mm. 35mm is more of a normal view.

You may not get anyway with all these comments, so if you can loan a lens from your friend or rent a lens, you be able to conclude what u prefer. If money not an issue, just buy, these are the best lens Nikkor have in their prime stable now. Royal prime, 24mm, 35mm,85mm f1.4and 200mmF2.

 

[juspoli]

Both fantastic lenses and both solid performers.

In terms of sharpness the 24G features better center performance but corner performance lose to 35G. 35G is quite even across the frame.

In terms of application the 24G & 35G can be vastly different. The 35G will be more forgiving when it comes to perspective distortion and it is my standard lenses for group photos & wedding photo-journalism. The 35G can still be used for certain types of half-body couple photos whilst the 24G will have a hard time. However the 24G (At f2 and larger apertures) can give that oomph which no other lens can offer... let's call it the "wide-angle bokeh" look. I often used the 24G during wedding gatecrash & wedding farewell (where you need the f/1.4 & wideness to capture the moment when the bride hugs her best gf etc). The 35G is my bread-and-butter lens but the 24G is the lens that can make that photo, and thus my work, stand-out from the crowd.

That said, I have sold my 24G ages ago as I cannot justify the price-usage frequency ratio. Please treat both with dignity and respect and use them both for their individual strengths and see which you like more!

Thanks for highlighting the application of each lens. Greatly appreciate it as it gives me idea how different they are and how to use it for what I do. I'm not a professional photographer, just a serious hobbyist..ü

I agree that its hard to justify the price to usage ratio which I think would be the same case for me but can't resist the "wide-angle bokeh" look you mentioned and the satisfaction after taking those great shots using this lens..ü

By the way, did you also use this 24G as a landscape lens when you had it? Will a 100mmX100mm square filter be used without vignetting if stacking more than 1 filter? Or a wider filter should be used? Thanks as I plan to go into landscape as well using this lens.

 

[juspoli]

So agree...

sjackal & Dfive - thanks for the comments..i'm starting to understand now the difference of these lenses not just the focal length..ü

 

[juspoli]

I only have the 24mm F1.4 but not the 35mm F1.4. I do have the other 35F2 from nikkor. After comparing my usage on the 35mm vs 24mm, my own style of shooting, i prefer the performance from the 24mm. reason is the perspective from the lens which is difference from the 35mm. 35mm is more of a normal view.

You may not get anyway with all these comments, so if you can loan a lens from your friend or rent a lens, you be able to conclude what u prefer. If money not an issue, just buy, these are the best lens Nikkor have in their prime stable now. Royal prime, 24mm, 35mm,85mm f1.4and 200mmF2.

thanks bro! I agree, i need to try it out first hand..i dont want to think about the 85G for now as it will make matters more complicated..hahaha

 

[Dav-C]

I notice that 35mm has more halo/CA at f1.4, diminishing at f2 and gone by f2.8. Therefore has to be careful with certain scenes.

But with the 85mm, you just shoot.

 

[recap]

i own the nikon 24/1.4 AF-S, 28/1.4 AF-D and the 35/1.4 AF-S.

every single one of them complements each other. there is no overlap.

reason why the 24/1.4 is significantly sharper than the 35/1.4 is due to the aspherical element in its lens design. It is a very sharp lens. One of the few that can keep up with the D800E sensor at f/2.0 and beyond. The 35/1.4 suffers from resolution issues until beyond f/4.0 for good measure.

the 28/1.4 AF-D is a very classic rendering lens, with a slower AF, and its actually quite soft with the D800E. It did reasonably well with the 12MP FF cameras - d700/D3/D3S for a long period of time, but with the latest sensor and its dated 1994 design, you can see its flaws. It does however, have very beautiful bokeh and a classic rendering suitable for portraits.

Also, as far as I know, it is the only 28mm f/1.4 of its kind out there.

I will advise holding onto the 35 and hopefully getting the 24/1.4 eventually. Sometimes you'll need the benefit of an ultra wide, sometimes you'll prefer a slightly wide to normal field of view.

As for the 85/1.4D vs the 85/1.4G, there are significant differences in its rendering. One is more classic, the other is ridiculously sharp, high contrast, full of detail resolved and faster focusing. Ironically these days I don't go for ultimate sharpness, preferring to cover weddings with the 28/1.4 AF-D and the 85/1.4 AF-D, even though I own the newer lenses. Horses for courses. What count is if the folks viewing your shots enjoy what you've taken.

 

[recap]

End of day the Nikkor 24mm is the sharpest thing around at 24mm.... sharper or equal to the Leica 24 1.4 in fact ( a $6000 lens !! ) so for me it's a bargain lens.

He's telling the truth. I own the Leica 24/1.4 and the Nikon rivals it in every single way, has AF. The Leica requires an awkward external viewfinder for framing the scene and is limited to a close focusing distance of 0.7m. Only thing the Leica wins out in my book is that it has VERY beautiful bokeh, better than the Nikkor. But its a quibble at this level.

 

[Omega23]

i own the nikon 24/1.4 AF-S, 28/1.4 AF-D and the 35/1.4 AF-S.

every single one of them complements each other. there is no overlap.

reason why the 24/1.4 is significantly sharper than the 35/1.4 is due to the aspherical element in its lens design. It is a very sharp lens. One of the few that can keep up with the D800E sensor at f/2.0 and beyond. The 35/1.4 suffers from resolution issues until beyond f/4.0 for good measure.

the 28/1.4 AF-D is a very classic rendering lens, with a slower AF, and its actually quite soft with the D800E. It did reasonably well with the 12MP FF cameras - d700/D3/D3S for a long period of time, but with the latest sensor and its dated 1994 design, you can see its flaws. It does however, have very beautiful bokeh and a classic rendering suitable for portraits.

Also, as far as I know, it is the only 28mm f/1.4 of its kind out there.

I will advise holding onto the 35 and hopefully getting the 24/1.4 eventually. Sometimes you'll need the benefit of an ultra wide, sometimes you'll prefer a slightly wide to normal field of view.

As for the 85/1.4D vs the 85/1.4G, there are significant differences in its rendering. One is more classic, the other is ridiculously sharp, high contrast, full of detail resolved and faster focusing. Ironically these days I don't go for ultimate sharpness, preferring to cover weddings with the 28/1.4 AF-D and the 85/1.4 AF-D, even though I own the newer lenses. Horses for courses. What count is if the folks viewing your shots enjoy what you've taken.

agreed with what you say... looking back at my photos.. i miss those colors from older nikon lenses from AFD

 

[mogwai]

agreed with what you say... looking back at my photos.. i miss those colors from older nikon lenses from AFD

I second this - the 'less contrasty' pics still feel special.

 

[Dav-C]

If the viewers likes vignette, overexpose, blur, funny framing I have no hard feeling to just add that in Aperture. But my personal photos I want them sharp as RAW file, we are in digital age man. To soften photos also can use the 'portrait' in Picture Control, effectively reduce sharpness. Or change the setting in the RAW processing slider bars. Have a cheap 50mm 1.8D, just shoot at 1.8 all blur (but very sharp at f4).

Logically if you like prime, get 85 1.8/1.4. But if your focus now is wide-angle, 14-24 will provide more opportunity for knowledge and versatility.

 

[cichlid]

From sample images that I see online, those of the 24mm f1.4 lens often have 3D look to it. It's really nice.

 

[recap]

If the viewers likes vignette, overexpose, blur, funny framing I have no hard feeling to just add that in Aperture. But my personal photos I want them sharp as RAW file, we are in digital age man. To soften photos also can use the 'portrait' in Picture Control, effectively reduce sharpness. Or change the setting in the RAW processing slider bars. Have a cheap 50mm 1.8D, just shoot at 1.8 all blur (but very sharp at f4).

Actually, interestingly, I used to think like that. Get the raw file perfect. Do some "destruction" in post production. Then I realized there was one thing that the more modern aspherical nano coated glass cannot replicate even after significant post production - the quality of the bokeh. There is a distinctive differential rendering of the classic glass that as far as I know, I have not been able to replicate in terms of bokeh.

I've shot for many years and to be honest, I used to think it was all about sharpness all the time. Getting nice perfectly sharp in focus shots - after all, who doesn't want that. Then I realized that sometimes, it wasn't about technical perfect. It was about capturing the moment, no matter how flawed it was. A memory of the emotion of that instant in time. And then I no longer cared about sharpness too much anymore.

Interesting side tid-bit I discovered today: as an owner of the 85/1.4D and the 85/1.4G, the D version can actually keep up with the 36MP sensor! No kidding! I was surprised myself...

 

[recap]

along the same lines, I suppose, this is why there is still a strong following for the pre-aspherical classic rendering Leica glass - despite the "glow" at maximum aperture and the less than optimal sharpness on the M8/M9 digital sensor. Sometimes, its not all about getting it sharp, the classic expression of an old school lens may be preferred by other photographers.

Its like say the Nikkor 35/1.4 G vs the Canon 35/1.4 L and against the Zeiss 35/1.4 T*. They all complement each other at the same focal length. The Canon probably wins in the sharpness contest wide open. The Zeiss wins in the resolution stakes stopped down and the Nikon has the convenience of fast autofocus in a light frame. I own all three lenses so I will say that its really a "horses for courses" kind of thing. But best bokeh definitely goes to the Zeiss without question. The sharpness stakes will be won by the Leica 35/1.4 FLE. NO CONTEST there whatsoever.

 

[juspoli]

Thanks guys for all the replies. Just got my 24G after a few days of loaning my friend's 24. The unique "wide angle bokeh" of this lens really is a big factor for my decision on getting this lens. I agree its sharper than my 35G but for now, the 35G is still an awesome lens for me since it does not distort person/people's faces. Im now excited to use this 24, looking forward to learn how to properly use it and discover how different it is from my 35. Any tips are welcome...ü