Everyone,

I was wondering if I can get any comments about either the Nikon 24mm/2.8, the 35mm/2, and the 28mm/2.8. I'm trying to expand my collection and would like a wide angle lens. I prefer to shot available light pics (35mm) but I read that "if you're going wide, go wide" (24mm). How different are these lenses in terms of appproach to shooting and technique? I guess the 28mm is a compromise and would like comments on that as well. Also, is CRC that important? Seems only the 24mm has it. Anyway, thanks for the responses. I know this seems like a lot of questions.

-- JM (jmelchor1@netscape.net), February 12, 2001

Answers

The 35mm lens is my favorite focal length. I've owned both the 24mm and the 28mm and I found them a bit to wide for me. The extra stop on the 35mm is a plus, as well. I find the 35mm to be my perfect "normal" lens.

-- David Cunningham (dcunningham@attglobal.net), February 12, 2001.

You don't make mention of whether you are talking about the latest auto focus lenses, or the AIS manual focus, but I have used them all, so here are my opinions based on actual hands-on use.

35mm f/2.0 MF- My lens was very good, although I heard stories about sample variations. For years this was my standard lens, and it could do it all for me.

35mm f/2.0 AF- Was I felt, better than the MF lens. It focused closer and I thought it had better wide-open performance. My lens failed within two years...sticky aperture.

24mm f/2.8 MF- Outstanding lens... no fault to find. Try to find a book by Galen Rowell called "Mountain Light", or any of John Shaw's books. The 24mm lens is a favorite of these people, and the images should win you over.

24mm f/2.8 AF- Optically fine, loose construction. Sold it.

28mm f/2.8 MF- Very good, but I found the 24mm lens better for me, and it was too close to both the 35mm (my standard) and the 24mm. Sold it.

Ultimately, I purchased a long desired AIS 35mm f/1.4 after my AF lens failed. I find the 35mm and 24mm lenses work well together. If you are using fixed lenses, you need to have enough justification to change lenses. There is enough of a visual difference between 35 and 24 to make the change worth while. I always found the 28mm lens to be hard to recon... not wide enough, or too wide... it just didn't fit my way of seeing. I travel extensively with only a 24, 35 and 105, and never feel I am missing anything. BTW, I also have the Nikkor AIS 20mm f/2.8, an outstanding lens, but the 24 just works better for me. A slight tilt with the 20, and you will see converging verticals. This can happen with the 24 also, but it is easier to control.

As far as CRC, all I know is that I can shoot with my 24 and 35 wide open and close up... they are both sharp.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 12, 2001.

I love wideangle lenses! I went through a number of Nikkor and Nikkor-compatible wideangle lenses of various focal lengths, including an AIS 28mm f/2.8, before I settled on an AIS 24mm f/2 and an AF 20mm f/2.8. The 28mm I didn't like because it simply wasn't wide enough for my purpopse, and I tried a borrowed 35mm, which I found not wide enough on many occasions when I went shooting architecture. In any case, I think any of the Nikkor prime wideangle lenses will be fine optically, with or without the CRC (which, I suppose, is probably not particularly important if you're using the lens for shooting landscape and architecture) the question is really which focal length to choose. If you're not yet prepared to use a 20mm (oh, you really should try it!), I would recommend either the f/2 or f/2.8 version of the 24mm.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), February 13, 2001.

I'll take a contrarian position and vote for the 28/2.8(AIS)which does have CRC.CRC does make a difference--that's why Nikon introduced it with the old 24/2.8 NAI and later extended it to other wide angle primes. It decidedly reduces distortion at close range, a valuable feature if you're shooting groups or individuals at short distances in environmental shots. The 24-28mm primes are--by design and reputation--among Nikon's sharpest lenses.I've got both(a happy accident)and am always startled by the jaw-dropping resolution they produce in slides and negatives.

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), February 13, 2001.

Hi, JM. The previous posters are all very helpful and knowledgeable. I speak from having read their previous posts. Now, for my opinion. While it is true that Galen Rowell's books feature the 24 f/2.8 more than any other lens, and John Shaw's feature the 24 f/2.8 prominently (though not nearly as much as the 105), you should note that these photographers can produce great work with a point and shoot. They also predominantly shoot on a tripod, and stopped down (f/11 or greater in Galen's case). I never found the 24 satisfactory unless it was stopped down to f/8 or greater. It also requires considerable talent to use lenses wider than 24 mm. I don't have that talent. But if you do, then you'll love the 24, or 20 mm f/2.8, or even the 17-35 mm f/2.8 AFS (blistering sharp zoom) or 20-35 mm f/2.8 zoom (smaller and easier to handle, but flares more into a light source). If you're like me, and into people, portraits, and travel photography, I think you will find the 28 f/2 AIS or one of the 35's quite satisfactory. I find that they distort the human figure less, although Bob Krist, in his magnificent book "Secrets of Lighting on Location" does fantastic work with the 20, 24 and 20-35 mm lenses. I'm not going to emphasize a choice of which of the three 35's (f/2 AIS, f/1.4 AIS, or f/2 AF-D) because I find that that is a very personal decision and opinions vary in that regard. The lubrication getting on the blades of the economically priced AF-D lens is a fairly common ocurrence. Pays to get the USA warranty instead of gray. Perhaps I should point out that even though my 28 f/2 is blistering sharp, I'm partial to other focal lengths. The 105 f/2.5, any Nikon 85 mm, 50 mm; as well as 300, 400 and 500 mm on tripods. I guess it all comes down to how you see the world. Good Luck.

-- DJ Soroka (DJ2SOROKA@msn.com), February 17, 2001.

My vote is for the current 28mm AF2.8D. I've had the 28mm 3.5 manual, the 28mm AF non-D, the 35mm 1.4 manual, and most recently the 35mm AF2.0 non-D. Now that (35mm AF2.0) is a sharp lens with excellent contrast. For a few years I also shot Leica R using a 28mm Elmarit-R and 50mm Summicron-R and a 135mm Elmarit-R (the most underrated lens in the history of the world). The Nikon 35mm AF2.0 was the only Nikon I had that could go head to head with the Leica. So why do I vote for the 28mm? Because it is every bit as good as the 35mm AND when open wide gives me just a tad more depth of field-- enough to notice if you look close. My daughter now uses the 35mm AF2.0. By the way, I've also had the 35mm AF-D and it;s true what they say, oil does get on the blades. Never had that trouble with the non-D, and we've had it since, what, 1990?

-- tom (tommytw312@aol.com), February 24, 2001.

Own a 24/2.8AF-D and use a 35/2.8 AIS on frequent occasion. Both are great, and I'm using them on FM2's without problems. 28mm is somewhat awkward for me. Owned a twenty(f/4 AI) at one point in time, haven't missed it at all.

-- Mike DeVoe (karma77@att.net), March 02, 2001.