Nikon 24mm f1.4 good or bad

[ndwgolf]

Thinking of getting a Nikon 24mm f 1.4 for landscape and street/travel……….any comments, good or bad idea.
Plan to use it on my D600 or D3s

 

[Pookeyhead]

If you're going to spend that much... why not just get the 12-24 f2.8? Optically its just as good believe it or not. If it's for landscape, you've no need for the f1.4 aperture, and f2.8 is still pretty fast... and it's pretty much the same price as the 24 1.4 prime.

You'd have to actually be an idiot to get the prime if you have no need for the fast aperture.

If you DO need the speed, then yes, it's a great lens. Lighter than having the very heavy 12-24 attached.


Take your pick depending on what you want it for... both are fantastic.

 

[architectfadi]

Doesn't the 24 1.4 take filters, or at least reasonably priced filter systems?

 

[ndwgolf]

David I didn't know Nikon had a 12-24.............I already have the 14-24 but wanted something a wee bit lighter for my up and coming trip to India

 

[Willo]

I think pookeyhead is referring to the dx lens.

 

[kman]

It's not a good lens....it's a bloody amazing lens!

 

[Laudrup]

If you have a 24-70 already I'd give the 24mm 1.4G a miss. It does look better to me than the 14-24, but not enough to warrant buying it outright. I'd get a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or a Zeiss 25mm f/2 ahead of a 24mm f/1.4G. If you desperately need the autofocus and the then Nikon don't make anything better than the 1.4G

 

[architectfadi]

I think pookeyhead is referring to the dx lens.

But the dx lens isn't F2.8, it is F4.

Also, we are talking about full frame cameras which means the DX lens won't be that useful to use

 

[ndwgolf]

I want the auto focus for the action shots I plan to take on a lake in Kasmir

 

[Laudrup]

I think pookeyhead is referring to the dx lens.

It'll be the FX 14-24mm f/2.8.

 

[Laudrup]

I want the auto focus for the action shots I plan to take on a lake in Kasmir

If you've got the cash then I'd get it, you won't be disappointed.

 

[ndwgolf]

It'll be the FX 14-24mm f/2.8.

I got that puppy already but its very heavy for taking on long trips

 

[chrism_scotland]

24mm f1.4 is meant to be a stunning lens albeit at a price, I'd have one in a heartbeat if it wasn't £1400

 

[ndwgolf]

They are a wee bit cheaper here in Malaysia..............just a wee bitty though

 

[Cagey75]

If you already own the 14-24 I think you'd be crazy to get the 24 on top. It's an either or choice for my money. The Sigma 35 1.4 is half the price! It's quick, and about as sharp as you can get. If you don't mind losing that extra bit of width.

 

[Niall97]

It’s a great lens, I don’t think you need people to confirm that for you. However, you should consider if the price is worth it considering the lenses that you already have.

 

[jpw]

The 24mm 1.4 is one of Nikon's best lenses at any price, a joy to shoot with and the results are just fantastic. I had one for a while but sold it as it wasn't getting enough use to warrant keeping it, I can't afford to have lenses I only use now and again. If I could afford to, I'd still have it.

 

[boyfalldown]

What the others say. You pay for it but it is a stunning lens

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I realise that you're fortunate enough to be able to afford any gear you want, but if you already have the 24mm focal length covered on the lenses you own, why not see if you can rent the lens for the holiday instead of splashing out money especially?

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think pookeyhead is referring to the dx lens.

Nope.. FX. The 12 was a typo.

14- 24, Amazing lens, and pretty much the same price as the 24 prime.

It's heavy though... it may be great for landscape, but I'd get a bit fed up carrying around all the time for street photography.