NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => What the Nerds Do => Topic started by: richardHaw on February 18, 2021, 08:51:42
-
https://richardhaw.com/2021/02/18/repair-nikkor-24mm-f-2-ai-s/
finally got one :o :o :o
-
I have had a very mixed reaction to the 24/2 Nikkor over the years. In the mid '80s I fell into the trap of believing one always should prefer faster lenses, so replaced my trusty 24/2.8 with a brand new 24/2. That move was an unmitigated disaster. The overall rendition lost the vivacity of the f/2.8 and took on a greyish, dull appearance as well. I bit the bullet, sold off the f/2 after a few months, and returned to the f/2.8 to reinstate happiness. A then close friend acquired another 24/2 that he was immensely proud off, I did test it and there was the same greyish dullness to the images.
Fast forward to the early '10s when in London, I visited Grey's and found what looked a pristine 24/2. I briefly shot a few frames on my digital camera (D3 if memory serves) and they looked very nice, so I purchased the lens. After a while that strange flat, dull, and greyish quality to the images returned. Apparently the CRC group had worked itself out of position and I could easily tighten it -- all of a sudden the lens was transformed and delivered crisp imagery.
My current understanding is that there are quality issues with the design of the 24/2 that sometimes severely degrade the image quality. That is a very possible explanation why people rate this lens so differently.
As of now, I mainly use the 24/2 on my Df cameras. It likes the Df, I like the Df, so what is not to like?
-
the CRC could easily be misaligned if the focusing ring was turned too-much (key bent). :o :o :o
I noticed that vignetting covers the whole frame wide-open, this may be what you're experiencing ::)
Mine was also dull until I cleaned it, there's a very thin film of grease on the glass. after reassembling it performed A LOT BETTER...
it may be due to the greasy film or I may have gotten lucky when I reassembled it.
so far, i am sort of fine with what I have. i find it temperamental in the way that it produces nice images but not all the time, depending on what's in the frame.
this is of course, all wide-open, strictly speaking
-
I just checked some of my photos, some of them do appear flat, could this be caused by having too many lens elements? :o :o :o
-
My all-time favourite shot by the Nikkor 24/2 AIS.
-
well, at least this one looks nice :o :o :o
-
Thanks for the write up and congratulations on the new to you lens!
Birna, that is nice use of that lens!
-
been looking for it for many years :o :o :o (right price)
-
I have a 24/2.8 AI that perhaps in a couple of years had so much debris from the iris blades inside that I opened the lens and cleaned it. I removed the bayonet, carefully scratched a reference line for correct reassembly then removed the CRC group. Then I cleaned the glass surfaces and reassembled the lens, problem solved.The dulling of the image was even apparent in the viewfinder before cleaning. I wonder how many lenses have this problem of the iris shedding? I wonder if debris on the glass is the cause of the gray look mentioned.
The HN-1 lens hood provides minimum physical protection but little in the way of protection from stray light. In a discussion of protection UV filter v. none I noted that using a hand or hat made more of a difference than using a filter or not. With a filter if the sun is in the corner of the frame I get 13 small, hot ghosts and without I get only 12, not a great improvement. If the sun is just outside the corner of the frame and I use my hand to shade the front element I can avoid the small, hot ghosts all to gather.
Vignette is another issue with the 24/2.8. I don't like strong dark corners. I use the Distortion> Lens Correction> Vignette> feature in Photoshop with values of Amount -10 to -20 and Midpoint -15 to give a subtle vignette to direct the eye to the subject. Dark corners are best hidden in night photography or reduced in day photography by stopping down.
Even though I like the 24mm focal length I have little incentive to use my 24/2.8 AI Nikkor. I wonder if I'd be happier with a 24/2.0 AI as I find flare and especially ghost with my 24/2.8 AI disgusting. ??? :o :-X
Dave
-
An idea could be to get a cheap AFS 17-35/2.8. Maybe one that "squeaks" and does not autofocus well and then just use it with MF. Then set it to 24mm and use is as a 24mm lens. I think it performs very well at 24mm and much better than the AF 24/2.8 I had. The disadvantage is that 17-35 is a bit heavy......but if it is very cheap......
-
At least one of the "grey dull" 24/2 Nikkors I have been blessed (sic) with was brand new and arrived in the sealed factory box.
-
In another thread I showed that my AIS 24/2 copy seems to be ok. I used it on Z50 with an AF-adapter. Aperture was 5.6. Now a DX sensor only use part of the image circle. An example of how it performed:
-
A couple of 100% crops of above image:
-
At least one of the "grey dull" 24/2 Nikkors I have been blessed (sic) with was brand new and arrived in the sealed factory box.
Well that weakens my theory substantially.
-
i am curious about this "dull" look...if anybody has a sample I would like to see that and share in the site to educate people :o :o :o
does it go away when stopping the iris down?
-
The one copy of the 24
f/2.8 f/2 AIS that I tested did not seem dull, but while it resolved fairly well in the center, edges were far from sharp at infinity, and did not quite recover when stopped down to f/8.
Attached examples resized frames with D7100 handheld at f/2, f/2.8 and f/8, then 100% edge crops at f/2, f/2.8 and f/8 and a center crop at f/2.8 and f/8.
[Edit: Oops- this was f/2 version as in the thread title, not the f/2.8 version. Sorry for the confusion, now corrected and it is should be clear from the rest of the text too.]
-
same as my findings, the corners look terrible until f/5.6 :o :o :o but it still looks ugly compared to the center ::)
this behaviour is what I call "art" lens
-
My two copies of the 24/2.8 AIS never convinced me in the same manner as the first ones I used many decades ago, viz. first the 24/2.8 N then the NC (first version with multi-coating). Both ended at f/16 on the aperture scale. They had a character in their drawing dissimilar to the later models.
In fact, I purchased a nice NC version that had been AI-converted a few years back to enjoy its performance on my Df. I still have one of the f/2.8 samples but use it rarely these days.
-
After a lot of back and forth between N, NC, and K, I purchased a K 2.8 today. But I already regret not going for an earlier version - even just taking the form factor into consideration.
-
in every discussion about the 24/2 the 24/2.8 always comes in :o :o :o
its like talking about cyndi lauper back then but boy george always gets into the conversation ::) not that boy george or the 24/2.8 are bad or anything, its just hard to talk about one without mentioning the other
-
Yes, even when one do not intend to, f/2.8 seems to creep in, see my correction above. ;D
-
Yes, even when one do not intend to, f/2.8 seems to creep in, see my correction above. ;D
that sure confused me awhile ago :o :o :o
-
To bring us back on track, I just noticed how much convincing the f/2 AIS is at f/2.8 compared to the f/2.8 models.
-
To bring us back on track, I just noticed how much convincing the f/2 AIS is at f/2.8 compared to the f/2.8 models.
I haven't compared the corners, I think thats where the biggest difference should be seen :o :o :o
-
Here is an example for which the pleasantness of the 24/2 prevails. The sharpness zone gradually fades into the background so everything is rendered in a buttery smooth manner. Add the Df and everything improves ever so much.
-
An idea could be to get a cheap AFS 17-35/2.8. Maybe one that "squeaks" and does not autofocus well and then just use it with MF. Then set it to 24mm and use is as a 24mm lens. I think it performs very well at 24mm and much better than the AF 24/2.8 I had. The disadvantage is that 17-35 is a bit heavy......but if it is very cheap......
<Endorse^^^. My copy of the 17-35/2.8 is very, very good at 24mm.
-
An idea could be to get a cheap AFS 17-35/2.8. Maybe one that "squeaks" and does not autofocus well and then just use it with MF. Then set it to 24mm and use is as a 24mm lens. I think it performs very well at 24mm and much better than the AF 24/2.8 I had. The disadvantage is that 17-35 is a bit heavy......but if it is very cheap......
An ideal candidate! Does not autofocus any more.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-17-35mm-1-2-8D-ED-Lens/133669701234?hash=item1f1f55c672:g:Ye4AAOSwxjZgL8I4
-
That seems to be a very good deal for such a nice lens.
The chip probably still works which is an advantage compared to a pure manual focus lens.
-
The CPU chip is more robust than the AFS mechanism ....
However, if one is going to use the AFS 17-35/2.8 as a substitute for a (manual) 24mm lens, there is a heavy weight penality to pay :( Handling the 17-35 as a purely manual lens is inferior too.
-
Properly adjusted, the CRC feature of the 24/2 AIS ensures a very impressive close-focus performance. 100% crops centre and corner of a snapshot of my bookshelf with the lens set to f/2 (Df, ISO 640) illustrate this aspect nicely. Apart from a slight veiling flare evident into the corners of the frame, every detail is crisp and clear even with the lens set wide open. The K3 split-screen on my Df helped me getting optimal focus. For an essentially flat-field subject such as this, you cannot miss the focus mark by much before the whole frame goes murky and all detail is lost.
Centre crop first, then corner. both 100%. The Df was hand-held and shutter speed was 1/40 sec for f/2. There is obvious barrel distortion up close, like with the 35/1.4 AIS. I left this as is.
-
i am going to share these when i have the time :o :o :o
-
Hello Dear Nerds,
got finally a 24 mm f/2 after searching for it for years. Because of former discussions, I am not sure whether I find a good or bad example. Maybe someone can help? Because of compression upload limit maybe hard to decide.
In any case Thanks for Your help.
Cheers Michael
-
Looks OK to me. However, the scene is not a demanding challenge for any wide lens thus assessment of the lens is difficult.
The 24/2 Nikkor is really sharp if it delivers as anticipated. However, the high sharpness is a double-edged sword as it makes the illusion of depth-of-field less convincing. This becomes plainly apparent in particular when the lens is used in the middle to near distance.
Finally, don't forget the CRC mechanism which is prone to getting out of alignment. As the CRC comprises the rear group, protect the lens from any impact to the rear. By the way, the slower sibling, 24/2.8 Nikkor is sensitive to the same problem if handled carelessly.
-
Looks like wide open aperture and focus is at the front right hand side of the building/image and very little depth of field...
-
Looks like wide open aperture and focus is at the front right hand side of the building/image and very little depth of field...
First. Many Thanks for Your comment.
I used f11 and hyperfocal, so depth of field should be between 0,7m an infinite.
Hmm?
-
Looks OK to me. However, the scene is not a demanding challenge for any wide lens thus assessment of the lens is difficult.
The 24/2 Nikkor is really sharp if it delivers as anticipated. However, the high sharpness is a double-edged sword as it makes the illusion of depth-of-field less convincing. This becomes plainly apparent in particular when the lens is used in the middle to near distance.
Finally, don't forget the CRC mechanism which is prone to getting out of alignment. As the CRC comprises the rear group, protect the lens from any impact to the rear. By the way, the slower sibling, 24/2.8 Nikkor is sensitive to the same problem if handled carelessly.
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. I appreciate this very much.
I will handle with care.
In case of CRC is g etting out of alignment, tighten the CRC mechanism is possible for me? I have sucessful experiences with dissasembling a 25-50 f/4. Maybe there is a foto which screws have to be tighten?
-
At this setting exact focus is at about 1.3m ?
I think it would be better to have exact focus at the house wall to judge sharpness?
-
I used f11 and hyperfocal[emphasis added], so depth of field should be between 0,7m an infinite.
I have not used this lens, but it is a tempting item on the used market.
My suggestion:
It might better serve your desire to evaluate the lens if you avoid relying exclusively on the hyperfocal scale while testing the lens.
I recommend, with the camera on a solid support (tripod, etc), to focus on a single object or distance. I usually shoot an aperture series from wide open to f/16. Even better to do this at several different distances, say infinity, 5 meters, 2 meters, 1/2 meter.
Throw in a few hyperfocal shots at each setup so you can compare the look of "straight" focusing to hyperfocal.
All this test shooting is a bit tedious, but it rewards you with increased knowledge of your new lens.
-
Hyperfocal focusing does not work well with the 24/2 Nikkor. The reason is -- as said before -- that the lens is so sharp in the focused plane that the illusion of depth-of-field breaks.
Focus it where you want to have peak sharpness.
-
Hyperfocal focusing does not work well with the 24/2 Nikkor. The reason is -- as said before -- that the lens is so sharp in the focused plane that the illusion of depth-of-field breaks.
Focus it where you want to have peak sharpness.
Dear Birna. Perfect. You are great.
Sorry I did not understand the meaning of your first comment. Now I understand. I compared it with my 50mm 1.2. According to depth of field and sharpness there was something strange, but i did not know what.
My lens experiences are very little. That is why I am following Nikon Gear and Nærfoto for years.
So I am happy finding a good example, took me 3-4 Years. Market for old Nikkor is very thin here.
I can use it now better.
Good Luck and health for You.
Cheers Michael
-
I have not used this lens, but it is a tempting item on the used market.
My suggestion:
It might better serve your desire to evaluate the lens if you avoid relying exclusively on the hyperfocal scale while testing the lens.
I recommend, with the camera on a solid support (tripod, etc), to focus on a single object or distance. I usually shoot an aperture series from wide open to f/16. Even better to do this at several different distances, say infinity, 5 meters, 2 meters, 1/2 meter.
Throw in a few hyperfocal shots at each setup so you can compare the look of "straight" focusing to hyperfocal.
All this test shooting is a bit tedious, but it rewards you with increased knowledge of your new lens.
Dear Pluton, thanks for Your intelligent comment. This is a very good idea. And I will do it in this way. I am just in the beginning of using it. It takes just a little time.
Enjoy the trip.
Michael
-
At this setting exact focus is at about 1.3m ?
I think it would be better to have exact focus at the house wall to judge sharpness?
Hello Meper. Thank you for your hint. Given the conflicting experiences regarding the 24mm f/2, I wanted to know if my example was ok. I have had doubts, which have now been cleared. It wasn't about sharpness performance, it was about performance in general.
Many greetings Michael
-
I think I have a perfect sample of the 24/2. A couple of test images was made in this thread in post #12 or so.....but it is on DX body so it may show better quality than on a FX body.
Do you use it on DSLR or Z-body?
If used on Z-body and you use "hyperfocal" then you trust that the adapter is 100% the correct length. I could suspect that adapters are a fraction on the short side to ensure infinity focus. It can be tested if you can focus past infinity or how much you can focus past infinity. I think those wide angle Nikkor lenses were adjusted (from factory) to exact infinity focus at the "infinity stop"? ....so if this wide angle lens can focus past infinity the adapter is probably a bit short.....
-
It bears to remember the factory focusing tolerance of the 'F' mount is no more than ± 0.05mm. A hair strand from a Nordic person is usually 0.25-0.4mm. Thus we can say the tolerance indeed is hair-thin :)
When we use the FTZ or similar adapter to mount 'F' lenses, two additional interfaces come into the equation and the strain on exact register distance is increased. For longer focal lengths this is usually not of much concern, but it does potentially lead to issues with short-focal lenses, in particular fast ones such as the 24/2 (or 24/1.4).
I guess my advice is to use native lenses if they are wide-angles, but this advice is something I sin against more often than I care to think of.
-
A quick reminder that the 24/2 Nikkor can deliver excellent results ... a snapshot of my friend's Clematis is in evidence of this.
Nikon Df, by the way. This combination is great.
-
I think I have a perfect sample of the 24/2. A couple of test images was made in this thread in post #12 or so.....but it is on DX body so it may show better quality than on a FX body.
Do you use it on DSLR or Z-body?
If used on Z-body and you use "hyperfocal" then you trust that the adapter is 100% the correct length. I could suspect that adapters are a fraction on the short side to ensure infinity focus. It can be tested if you can focus past infinity or how much you can focus past infinity. I think those wide angle Nikkor lenses were adjusted (from factory) to exact infinity focus at the "infinity stop"? ....so if this wide angle lens can focus past infinity the adapter is probably a bit short.....
I am using it with Df! Mirrorless is for me a decision, that has many consequences, and I have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages.
-
For fast sharp lenses stay away from hyperfocal distance guessing on Df.
It's as others hint and mention; Focus on the part of the image you want to have sharp and stop down adequately to achieve some extra depth of field in front of that and behind that distance.
Some lenses are better at masking the transition between sharp and unsharp, these can help masking the perceived overall sharpness.
Peak sharpness, if you want to test if you have a good sample, should be around f/5.6 I would say for the lens in question, already at f/11 you will see less sharpness due to aperture blade induced diffraction.
At full aperture, f/2 only the very center will be quite sharp, far corners will be softer.
-
For fast sharp lenses stay away from hyperfocal distance guessing on Df.
It's as others hint and mention; Focus on the part of the image you want to have sharp and stop down adequately to achieve some extra depth of field in front of that and behind that distance.
Some lenses are better at masking the transition between sharp and unsharp, these can help masking the perceived overall sharpness.
Peak sharpness, if you want to test if you have a good sample, should be around f/5.6 I would say for the lens in question, already at f/11 you will see less sharpness due to aperture blade induced diffraction.
At full aperture, f/2 only the very center will be quite sharp, far corners will be softer.
Dear Erik, thanks a lot for that interesting discussion and hint.
I will stay away from hyperfocal with my fast lenses using it in suggested way.
Bad old habit. ;-) In my juvenile backpacking tours I used a Nikkor-Zoom 3,5 - 4,5 for landscapes at f16 with tripod and 35 mm film. Always wondering why my Nikkor 50 mm 1.8 longnose had been sharper handheld.
Greeting from Austria, Michael
-
In common with the legendary Nikkor 105mm f/2.5, the Nikkor 24mm f/2 is a perfect match to the Nikon Df. Provided the 24 is one of the decent samples, of course.
Architecture at f/5.6.
-
The fast 242 comes into its stride for more intimate scenes under low light conditions. The f/2 setting allows for decent shutter speeds, and one has to use the depth of field, or lack thereof, to its best advantage.
My intrepid old friend, suffering badly from Parkinson's, now developed additional symptoms and recently wound up in a hospital bed. However, he was pleased when I described my experiences with the Z8!! Thumbs up, now that's a good guy.
-
Wonderful photo, Birna!
-
In common with the legendary Nikkor 105mm f/2.5, the Nikkor 24mm f/2 is a perfect match to the Nikon Df. Provided the 24 is one of the decent samples, of course.
Architecture at f/5.6.
Dear Birna,
you did this photo with Df?
Cheers Michael
-
Yes.
-
Sorry to hear about his condition. That thumb up is priceless
-
Yes.
Focus on first lamp?
Any postprocessing?
Convincing result!
-
Run through Photo Ninja, which happens to be synergetic with Df as well :)
With immense contrasts such as seen in this scene, I generally pull the highlights a little back to prevent them from being blown out. Concurrently, shadows might need a little tweak to bring forth detail better. All in all very straightforward post-processing in my book.
-
Run through Photo Ninja, which happens to be synergetic with Df as well :)
With immense contrasts such as seen in this scene, I generally pull the highlights a little back to prevent them from being blown out. Concurrently, shadows might need a little tweak to bring forth detail better. All in all very straightforward post-processing in my book.
The result is very convincing.
I will put off Z8 and S-lenses decision for a while.
Thanks a lot Birna.