Nikon 24 1.4g vs 1.8g

[foulmouthedleon]

Had totally forgotten about the DP section of MacRumors and we'll see if I get what I want out of this thread (i.e. you tell me what I want to hear).

Have a Nikon D810 and just procured a 58mm 1.4g lens. Yeah, I know that lens has a lot of detractors, but I personally love it - probably because a lot of people don't. Anyway, I am and most likely always will be a fan of primes and figured I'd build myself a nice little prime set (and I want to go the 1.4 route which ain't cheap, I know).

To my point/question - has anyone compared a 24mm 1.4g and it's newer/cheaper counterpart, the 1.8g? I've read/heard that the 24 1.4 is pretty much one of the better, if not the best, prime that Nikon makes (not for the money, of course, that'd probably be the 50 1.8) but really haven't read a bad review of it. Was looking for some first hand experience with either of these lenses and figured I'd see what the MacRumors crowd had to say.

 

[Laird Knox]

Depending on your use you might want to take a look at the Rokinon 24mm f1.4 as well. For night photography it does a fantastic job at controlling coma in the corners. I use it quite a bit with the D800.

http://www.rokinon.com/lenses/digital-photo-lenses/24mm-f14

Unfortunately if you aren't looking for night performance I don't have any additional information on the Nikon primes.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Had totally forgotten about the DP section of MacRumors and we'll see if I get what I want out of this thread (i.e. you tell me what I want to hear).

Have a Nikon D810 and just procured a 58mm 1.4g lens. Yeah, I know that lens has a lot of detractors, but I personally love it - probably because a lot of people don't. Anyway, I am and most likely always will be a fan of primes and figured I'd build myself a nice little prime set (and I want to go the 1.4 route which ain't cheap, I know).

To my point/question - has anyone compared a 24mm 1.4g and it's newer/cheaper counterpart, the 1.8g? I've read/heard that the 24 1.4 is pretty much one of the better, if not the best, prime that Nikon makes (not for the money, of course, that'd probably be the 50 1.8) but really haven't read a bad review of it. Was looking for some first hand experience with either of these lenses and figured I'd see what the MacRumors crowd had to say.

What are you wanting to shoot with it? Personally my 14-24mm covers that range beautifully. Yes its a 2.8, but how often do I want to shoot Landscapes even at 2.8? Not often?

 

[foulmouthedleon]

What are you wanting to shoot with it? Personally my 14-24mm covers that range beautifully. Yes its a 2.8, but how often do I want to shoot Landscapes even at 2.8? Not often?

I'm not necessarily going to shoot landscapes with it. I basically want a good, high quality fast lens that I can have that's wider than my 58mm. My next (and final) purchase will probably be a 70-200 f4. I figure that should keep me satisfied (famous last words) for a while.

But to answer your question - I wouldn't need the 1.4 to shoot landscapes with, but it'd be "nice to have" in other situations.

Regarding Laird's post/suggestion. I realize this is extremely short-sighted of me (pardon the pun), but I just can't bring myself to buy an off brand lens (Rokinon, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss...). I'd prefer to stay with the Nikon brand as is (to me) works the best for my camera.

Thank you for the input so far!

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'm not necessarily going to shoot landscapes with it. I basically want a good, high quality fast lens that I can have that's wider than my 58mm. My next (and final) purchase will probably be a 70-200 f4. I figure that should keep me satisfied (famous last words) for a while.

But to answer your question - I wouldn't need the 1.4 to shoot landscapes with, but it'd be "nice to have" in other situations.

Regarding Laird's post/suggestion. I realize this is extremely short-sighted of me (pardon the pun), but I just can't bring myself to buy an off brand lens (Rokinon, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss...). I'd prefer to stay with the Nikon brand as is (to me) works the best for my camera.

Thank you for the input so far!

70-200 f2.8 is nicer! I love mine.
I only have Nikon. I tried the Sigma when I bought my 200-500 but found the AF better on the Nikon.

 

[foulmouthedleon]

In a perfect world I'd rather have the 2.8, but it's too damn big. The F4 seems a bit more manageable for me. Maybe when/if I get the "hang" of a tele zoom I'll move up, but I figure the F4 is a good place to start (and I can't bring myself to try the 70-300). I figure if I'm spending the money...

 

[Apple fanboy]

In a perfect world I'd rather have the 2.8, but it's too damn big. The F4 seems a bit more manageable for me. Maybe when/if I get the "hang" of a tele zoom I'll move up, but I figure the F4 is a good place to start (and I can't bring myself to try the 70-300). I figure if I'm spending the money...

I have the 70-300. It's not bad. It often gets an outing because it doesn't break the back in the bag.

 

[Laird Knox]

Regarding Laird's post/suggestion. I realize this is extremely short-sighted of me (pardon the pun), but I just can't bring myself to buy an off brand lens (Rokinon, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss...). I'd prefer to stay with the Nikon brand as is (to me) works the best for my camera.

I hear what you are saying. I have several Nikon lenses (24-70, 70-200, two 50 mm f1.8, two 28 mm f2.8) and the 24 mm just happens to not be one of them. The 24-70 is my main go to lens for walk around. The Rokinon 14 mm is my new go to lens for night photography.

So the recommendation wasn't without experience with the Nikon lenses. I just don't have experience with that exact lens. Rokinon and Sigma have been putting out some excellent glass. Overall quality I would go with the Nikon. For corner aberrations (coma) Rokinon beats Nikon hands down.

 

[Attonine]

I owned the 24 1.4. In fact it was my only lens for years. I bought it new around 2010 with a D700, sold it this past January. I Like photojournalism, documentary, street photography, so thats what I do. I went for the 24 because at the time Nikon did not have a 28 or 35 prime lens, they were just transitioning to the G series, so I didn't have a lot of choice and needed something quickly.

Anyway, very strong lens. Tough. Weather sealed. good focusing speed. I liked it a lot, taught me to get up real close to the subjects. Never felt I needed another lens. If i'd had the option at the time of buying I would have gone for a 28, the 24 is just a touch too wide for my use really. I can't comment of things like sharpness and all that stuff that people get bent up about because its not something I pay much attention to. Yes 1.4 is good for isolating subjects, but I'm not a bokeh fan either, I like subjects to be in context to their surroundings, I find the use of Bokeh an easy shot, anyone can do it.