What to get... 24mm

Killerbob

I think this has been somewhat discussed before, I just can't find the thread. If it has, I'm sorry. If it hasn't then it's about time:)

WIth a decent deal on the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART, I had actually decided to go ahead and get that lens to complement my Nikon 14-24mm, Nikon 24mm PC-E, and Nikon 24-70mm for landscape photography. But then I stupidly enough started questioning my decision, and now I am in doubt.

Trying to decide between the Nikon 20mm f/1.8, the Nikon 24mm f/1.4, and the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART, I am confused as to what to do???

spraynpray

If your landscape doesn't include nightscapes, the Sigma is a fine lens and half the price of the Nikon equivalent. If it does include nightscapes, steer clear because it is quite bad for the kind of aberrations that mainly show only at night.

I had a tryout with the 20mm f1.8 and it seemed good for normal light too, just not good enough for nightscapes.

Killerbob

The Nikon 24mm is an older lens, and I see that at least some of the reviews have pointed out it is not as sharp as the Sigma, especially in the center. Is that also your impression?

spraynpray

I didn't try the Nikon because of budgetary constraints so I cannot comment from experience but yours is the first adverse comment I've heard about the Nikon 24/1.4. If you mean 'by comparison to the Sigma', then yes, the art lenses do achieve pretty stunning figures for centre sharpness and while they aren't in any sense of the word bad at the edges, I think the Nikon is more consistent across the frame.

spraynpray

I wish the Nikon 20/1.8 had worked out for my nightscape project as it is so much more useful FoV than the 35mm/1.4 Art I have at the moment.

Pistnbroke

Sorry to be a bit stupid ..I may have missed something but for my education why do you need another 24mm when you have a 14-24, a 24mm PCE and a 24-70

Killerbob

There is a decent difference in how these lenses perform. The 14-24mm and the 24-70mm are zooms, and though they are both fantastic lenses, they do not stand up to a high-quality, crisp prime. They are also both big and heavy.

The 24mm PC-E is a tilt/shift lens, it is an OK prime lens, but it is also manual focus.

Finally all three are slow lenses compared to f/1.4. For landscape photography that may not be a dealbreaker, but I would use it for much more.

snakebunk

Why do you hesitate to buy the Sigma lense? From what I read it seems to be better and a lot less expensive compared to the Nikon 24/1.4.

Killerbob

The Sigma is about half the price of the Nikon, and I know the Sigma is the best bang-for-the-buck. However, is it almost as good, as good, or better? If it is almost as good, I'll get the Nikon...

Ironheart

I wish the Nikon 20/1.8 had worked out for my nightscape project as it is so much more useful FoV than the 35mm/1.4 Art I have at the moment.

I think you should try another copy. Mine has worked out well and is a super crisp daytime lens too. Also 20mm isn't a well served focal length, meaning that the zooms that go there have more distortion, less crispness and less light than the f/1.8 prime. Also 20mm becomes 30mm on DX, pretty sweet there too.

Msmoto

OK, just for this for you Killerbob

A 20+MB file ...just a snapshot with the 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor, D800E,
f/6.3, 1/200, ISO 1250

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/20618864702/sizes/o/

Killerbob

Nice "snapshot" there Msmoto...

I am leaning towards the Nikon 24mm f/1.4, not only because it seems to be that way the reviews are leaning, but also because it has the weather sealing I so like, but also because I like the bokeh better from that lens. In the examples I have found from the Sigma, the bokeh seems a bit "metallic"

Pistnbroke

Sorry to try to get educated but when do you intend to use this at 1.4 ..I thought landscape photographers were all into depth of field ...

WestEndFoto

Sorry to try to get educated but when do you intend to use this at 1.4 ..I thought landscape photographers were all into depth of field ...

He acknowledged that and then said he would use it for "much more".

PB_PM

There are other reasons to use a wide aperture lens for landscape work, such as having a brighter viewfinder in dim conditions. This is particularly noticeable when working with filters. Yes you often setup a landscape shot before putting filters on, but it's still nice to check before you take a shot.

Killerbob

So I call up my usual Nikon-pusher, to order a 24mm f/1.4, and he asks why I wasn't ordering a Sigma 24mm and a 35mm ART instead, same price?

I know the old saying goes; if you think you need a 24mm for landscape photography, take 10 steps back and use your 35mm. However, that hadn't entered my planning, and now I really don't know what to do.

spraynpray

He has it right. Get the pair. ;-)

heartyfisher

My friend has a sigma 35mm art.. its really nice... but 24 is one of those "special" focal lengths. (most used focal length by photo journalists - by a large margin .. well at least when they still existed .... )

heartyfisher

He has it right. Get the pair. ;-)

or the new 24-35 sigma zoom ;-)

haroldp

So I call up my usual Nikon-pusher, to order a 24mm f/1.4, and he asks why I wasn't ordering a Sigma 24mm and a 35mm ART instead, same price?

I know the old saying goes; if you think you need a 24mm for landscape photography, take 10 steps back and use your 35mm. However, that hadn't entered my planning, and now I really don't know what to do.

If your composition is about juxtaposition of foreground and background, the focal length matters. Stepping back is a totally different composition.

If the subject is far off (a mountain range) then stepping back changes nothing.

If the subject is a Brown Bear, then mount a 600mm and step way back, quickly.

... H

nek4life

I really want to see the reviews on the new nikon 24mm 1.8g. I've been so tempted to pull the trigger on a refurbished 24mm 1.4g, but even at the refurb price the cost is prohibitive. I really like the 24mm focal length and I think it will make a nice landscape lens for Vermont. I had the 16-35mm for a while, but I wasn't a fan of the distortion of that lens and I found I shot it mostly at 24mm and 35mm. Wider than 24mm makes our small mountains super tiny in the distance. I think 24mm will give a nice balance of foreground and background. If I lived out west I think I might enjoy the 20mm. I also contemplated just getting the 24-70mm, but I'm not a huge fan of zooms and thinking that the 24mm end of the zoom might not be the best for landscapes. Plus the new 24-70mm is even more expensive than the 24mm 1.4g.

WestEndFoto

Consider one of the AIS lenses - I have 3 in my signature. If you are shooting landscapes, you don't need anything wider than about f/5.6. And you certainly don't need auto focus.......

Regarding distortion, you will only notice it if you are shooting a flat horizon, say an ocean. I would avoid the 20mm AIS for this reason if that concerns you, though the others are fine.

heartyfisher

Regarding lenses in your sig ... .. I have seen mixed reviews of the 40mm Ultron.. I have thought about getting it ... what are your thoughts on it ?

WestEndFoto

It is not absolutely stellar but not bad (my 28 is stellar). Somewhere between OK and good. I have not used it enough to narrow it down more than that. If you like the feel of a metal lens with a nice manual focus, it is good for that.

It is certainly worth the price at a around $500. Somebody wanting a slightly wider than normal prime on a budget should give this lens a good look.

Also, these lenses are not that great wide open, though the 28 is not too bad and the 40 Ultron is better than the others. However, I rarely use these focal lengths at anything wider than f/5.6, so it should not matter much. That said, the 40 Ultron may not be bad for nightscapes. It have not seen any coma, though I have not scrutinized coma performance against my 85 - which I know has none.

heartyfisher

thanks for that :-)

spraynpray

Beware of people saying any lens has no aberrations! Unless you have done the test yourself, and even on the copy you have bought (and can return), assume everything 35mm (that figure only comes from my experience and I have not gone longer)) and wider has aberrations, it is only a question of how bad. Price doesn't matter in this. If your subject requires no visible aberrations viewed large, you'd better check it out yourself and decide what level of disappointment/compromise you are prepared to accept.