Nikkor 24/2.8 AF(-D)

[frederikboving]

Hi,
Just got my Nikkor 24 mm f/2.8 AF (but no D). I am as happy as can be. But I pick up mixed signals with regards to the performance of this lens. As far as I can tell, this is a great lens and I have no complaints whatsoever (color rendition and sharpness), and distortion is no concern of mine as I mainly shoot landscape. Some report that the bad rep is due to the rear glass (CRC) getting loose and impacting the lens sharpness. Anyone with experience or tips in this regard? I use it on my D750.
Edit to change the aperture value from f/2 to f/2.8

[Birna Rørslett]

You probably refer to the 24/2 AIS? If not the there is an AF 24/2.8.

The 24/2 indeed has a very mixed review, and part of the diversity of opinions could well be due to the fact that misalignment of the CRC group badly impacts optical performance. I have had this very issue myself.

The AF 24/2.8 has seen a general lukewarm reception. The lens is OK but not considered great.

[MEPER]

I have the 24/2 AIS and it is a fine lens but not as sharp in the corners as in the center on 24x36. I think it will be very good as a DX lens.
I also had the 24/2.8 AFD and did not like it. Too much CA. I did not like the 18/2.8 AFD either…..with same reason. I considered the AFS 17-35/2.8 as the best 24mm lens Nikon has made when shooting film (have not used it much on my D5200....but maybe I should). 24 mm is in the middel of the zoom range and performance is very good at that focal length. I have not followed the development of newer Nikon lenses so don't know how the 17-35 is regarded today. My needs a CLA as it hunts a bit for focus and it "squakes" a bit but is still very useable. It is not a "plastic lens" as many are today. It you can get a cheap one in good condition….you may consider it. Probably a "forgotten" lens today…..

[Kenneth Rich]

Birna, you said, " The lens is OK but not considered great." Is this because of the misalignment of which you spoke?  How common is this problem, and why would Nikon not issue a recall for repair, back when the lens was current?  What I consider to be legendary is Nikon's brilliance in design, and Nikon's ultra high care in production of what are for me the best lenses manufactured, not actual, particular lenses, like my 105, or my old 80-200, or my age old f2 50 AI. "Good enough for me," is my dictum, and "OK" is the good housekeeping seal of approval when people like you say so.

[Birna Rørslett]

OK, so we are talking about the AF 24/2.8?

It hails from the first wave(s) with concomitant overenthusiasm from the maker's side for what AF could deliver. Thus focusing rings were tiny and narrow, in particular in the beginning of the AF era a mere afterthought. Thus there is a lot of play and slippage when one tries manual focusing. In a sense these lenses are truly *only* AF. However their screw-driver based technology was noisy and less precise than the AFS/AFS-E technology following later.

I have no direct indication that the CRC unit was to blame for any substandard performance on these lenses, but given the plasticky feel and build I wouldn't be too surprised.

[Kenneth Rich]

No, I was referring to your post commencing, "The 24/2 indeed has a very mixed review,. . . . . . . . I only have, use, will ever use manual focus Nikkor lenses with my F2SB and Df.

[Birna Rørslett]

Ach so.

I had a wonderfully working 24/2 that suddenly gave me lousy sharpness. Turned out the rear cell with CRC had got itself lose and as a result, image quality went down the drain. I tightened the cell back into its correct position and all was well again.

Problem is there is almost no warning for this happening (apart from poor images). The cell isn't that obviously out of position and nothing rattles when you shake the lens. The CRC is just not seated as it ought to.

[frederikboving]

Sorry - my bad. I meant the 2.8. I got an old copy with the slim MF ring, but I believe the lens construction as such has not changed much over the years. I have taken a series of pictures with my D750 with the lens wide open, and it looks to me to be so sharp in the corners that we are at the edge of the sensors resolution - nothing blurred IMO. I am only too aware this lens was made back in the film days and hence is not as great as many modern constructions, but price/value wise I find this to be a little gem. If you like 24mm. If.

[Birna Rørslett]

Of course a single copy might be better than the average for any given mass-produced item. So good for you that you are satisfied with the lens. I just tried this design a few times and wasn't thrilled by its performance.

I do happen to like the 24mm focal length -- a lot, in fact. The old version 24/2.8 N (with f/16 as the smallest aperture) must be my favourite of the F-mount versions, together with the f/2 AIS if it's in a decent working order. The newer 24/2.8 have been less exciting encounters. The AFS 24/1.8 & f/1.4 are good - very good, but I find I have issues with their almost clinical rendition. Same goes for the 24/1.8 S-Line, which probably is the sharpest of them all.