Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Dare to Compare: Nikon 24mm shoot out.

  1. #1

    Dare to Compare: Nikon 24mm shoot out.

    I knuckled down to geek out to something Iíve been exploring for many moons, a lens comparison between Nikon 24mm Trinity which includes the legendary ultra-wide angle Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 ($1760), the practical & smooth Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1650), and exotic Nikon 24mm f/1.4 ($1880). The Trinity shares three things in common:

    They are expensive Nikon glass. Anytime I spend over $1,000 on anything, I think long and hard.

    They focus fast and are razor sharp. One of Nikonís greatest strengths compared is effective focusing in low-light. You could make 20 x 30″ prints no problem using any of these lenses.

    They photograph well at 24mm. Sure, wide-angle distortion is a common atrribute at 24mmÖ but nothing that canít be fixed in post-processing (if that is your thing).

    What I have been curious about is how well they shoot at 24mm at their widest aperture.

    Here's the link to the full article:

    The Skinny:

    Shooting 24mm at 1.4 or 2.8 has itís merits. Itís a dance between a macro lens and wide angle, hard to accomplish yet worth weight in goldÖ. like landing a first kiss on a date. Shooting at f/1.4 in the 24mm range requires a certain skill. Add the needed trust needed to get your clients closer.


    I took my 24 f1.4 to Burning Man. I left my 14-24 at home. Why? I want lens protection from the elements and the 14-24 is just too much exposed to sand, water, and dirty hippies.

    Shooting from the hip has a whole new meaning at 14mm. Youíll know wy when standing inches from a flower girl bubbling with joy who has no idea you are about to create a photo that will make her grandmother MELT. THAT is what wedding photography is about.

    Forget flash & tripod when you can hand-hold at 1/15, ISO 3200, at 1.4. Thatís low-light shooting at itís bestÖ almost near infrared spectrum.


    16mm is where my world starts. I wish I could take it all in. I simply CANíT at 24mm. Period.

    A zoom is faster than my legs can walk in dire situations: think cake-cutting, wagging dog, or over-the-head politician fist pumpingÖ all distinct genres with similar challenges.

    Thereís no way I can justify owning, let along carrying, all three. At least one has to go. I boot the 24-70mm f/2.8.


    You donít buy a 24mm f/1.4 for sharpness at shooting at f/1.4. The Nikon 24mm is an exception. It is very, very sharp shot wide open. Then again, you donít buy a 24mm f1.4 for shoot at f/11 all day, many cheaper lenses will do get this job done for $1500 less.

    Modern zooms are just as sharp at 2.8. Thatís not the point. Thatís like asking for a $5,000 wedding dress for $500. It just doesnít happen. While the extra 2 stops of light is nice, the shallow depth of field makes this lens shines. But to see the bokeh best, you have to be close to your subjectÖ like within 2 feet.

    If I had to choose one lens, Iíd go for the Nikon 14-24 which is the best wide angle zoom lens Iíve ever used.

    If I was to choose one of the three: The Nikon 24mm f/1.4 is my winner.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    North Carolina, USA
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Dare to Compare: Nikon 24mm shoot out.

    Thanks for sharing the comparison. I've owned all three lenses and agree with your conclusion. The 24mm f/1.4 is my winner, too.

    Joe Colson Photography

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts