Nikkor 24mm f/2 Ai-S!!!

[richardHaw]

i am going to share these when i have the time

[Michael Hopferwieser]

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

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[Erik Lund]

Looks like wide open aperture and focus is at the front right hand side of the building/image and very little depth of field...

[Michael Hopferwieser]

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?

[Michael Hopferwieser]

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?

[MEPER]

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?

[pluton]

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.

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[Michael Hopferwieser]

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

[Michael Hopferwieser]

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

[Michael Hopferwieser]

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

[MEPER]

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.....

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[Birna Rørslett]

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.