I am considering to fill the gap between my 20mm and 35mm lenses with Nikon 24mm f2.8. Will need this lens for landscapes mostly, so AF is not really a necessity. On the other hand I have F-100 with its fast AF and "D" capabilities. I understand that it is up to me to decide, do I need AF or not. But to make my choice I would like to know, whether the optical quality of these two lenses is really the same? Your advice is highly appreciated.

Thank you,

Nikolai

-- Nikolai (nsoubbotin@worldbank.org), April 01, 1999

Answers

You can't go worng with either of these lenses. The manual version cost a little more new, but you 'may' be able to get a good deal on a used one. I use the AF 24/2.8 D, and it is my favorite lens for wide angle landscape shooting. You could also consider the AF20-35/2.8 D.

-- Jim Bridges (jcbejb@worldnet.att.net), April 02, 1999.

The difference is more than just AF, which isn't all that important for landscape work at 24mm. Since you have an F-100 body, the AF-D version of this lens lets you use matrix metering and control the aperture from the sub-command dial on your (F-100) camera body. Those are major advantages over the older MF AI-S version of this lens.

I haven't had a chance to check, but I think optically the two versions are the same; at least the AF version definitely isn't inferior optically. The difference in terms of lens construction is that the old AI-S version has a metal lens barrel while the AF-D lens is plastic, which IMO isn't a problem at all. But some people prefer a metal lens but it feels more solid.

Since Nikolai already has a 20mm and a 35mm, it doesn't seem to make sense to get the very expensive 20-35 zoom. Of course, you might want to replace all of your wide angle lenses by one zoom, but that is another topic.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), April 02, 1999.

Yes Shun, that was were I was going in suggesting the AF 20-35/2.8, trade the primes for the zoom, its just another option in the tools we use to get photographs. If I could justify the AF 20-35, it would be in my bag, but Im very content at this time with the 24/2.8 and 35/2.0 primes I use for wide-angle landscape shooting, they fit my vision of things. Of course that could change in a few years.

-- Jim Bridges (jcbejb@worldnet.att.net), April 02, 1999.

This is purely my speculation. Nikon considers the 20-35, 35-70, and 80-200 a set of three professional-grade zooms that give you a constant f2.8 max. aperture from 20mm to 200mm (w/ a small gap between 70-80). Now the latter two have been replaced by new AF-S models (the 35-70 becomes the 28-70/2.8 AF-S), I suspect that the next one could be the 20-35.

Of course the current 20-35 AF already focuses very fast, but an internal motor AF-S will let you manually override the focus without switching off AF on the body. That is a big advantage for photojournalism. I am holding off getting a 20-35 because there might be a new 20-35 AF-S or even a 17-35 AF-S. But then I could be waiting for a long long time without ever actually seeing one.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), April 03, 1999.

i usually turn off the autofocus feature of my f100 when i'm using a 20/24/28mm, even with 35mm at times. i manually move the infinity mark of the barrel according to whatever the aperture setting is. which means, if the opening is f/8, i manually place the infinity mark to within the f/8 marks of the barrel to cover as much depth of field as possible.

which means, you may not really need the autofocus feature with wide angle shots.

and another point is, the difference between a 20 and a 24 is just a few steps. which means, i don't think you need something in-between, your 20 and 35 will suffice, not unless, you are just looking for something to put your money on.

the quality are both the same for autofocus and the older lenses.

august

-- august (finefotos44@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.