So, I do not own wide primes. I do have a 14-24 and a 24-70. My question is what differences or IQ do you see between a Nikon 24 1.4 and my 24-70 shot at 24 other than the prime is faster glass. Ive been thinking about the 24 and or 35 but am interested in the above. Samples comparing the 2 would be great.
I just sold my 24-70 because is too bulky for my taste. While it is a good lens, at 24mm has double distortions in comparison with 24/1.4. I believe that they are almost equal sharp... Hard anyhow to make a detailed comparison because I rarely shoot 24/1.4 at a smaller aperture than f2. This lens sings wide open or at f2...
You have two lenses that match primes in IQ that give you infinite choices as far as focal legnth. If IQ is your only goal (not DOF control or speed )then you already have what you need.
I own all three and they were a revelation after having to depend upon the modest 24/2 AIS for many years (in terms of size and IQ). Having said that, the stellar 24-70 @ 24 is the 'weakest' of the three, with noticeable distortion. It comes down to form factor and subject isolation. From my experience, the 24/1.4 hits its stride at f/2 (I know I will get flak for this), a place neither of the zooms go.
You've got 24 covered well, go for the 35 but consider the Zeiss 1,4/35 too; very different than the Nikon and the one I opted for.
I've owned all three lenses you mention (24-70, 24/1.4G, and 35/1.4G) at the same time at one point.
I would say the main difference is the ability to shoot at f1.4. If you start shooting at f2.8 the 24-70 is equally sharp at f2.8 (which is impressive if you think about it). Other than sharpness and DOF I don't perceive a noticeable difference in rendering like color, contrast etc. MAYBE the primes are not as contrasty as the 24-70, I'm not sure if it's just in my mind.
However, at f1.4 I would say there is a huge difference in look compared to shooting at f2.8, This is the main benefit of the primes alon with the ability to shoot at lower ISO in darker situations (which basically nets you higher IQ images). There is a noticeable IQ difference even with an image shot at a ISO 400 vs ISO 1600.
I agree with j.llam. Got the zeiss 35 about 6 mo. ago. Little learning curve but not too much. Without question the best lens I've ever owned.
Plan to, little at a time, switch everything over to zeiss.
If you haven't already you might want to check out some of the photos using the ziess on alternate forums here.
I have the two zooms and the 24/1.4, and I can say that I love the 24/1.4 over the other two @ 24mm. Of course, I rarely shoot the 24/1.4 beyond f/2.8.
The 14-24 is the one I use least out of the three.
There's just something about shooting/handling the 24/1.4 that I love, but couldn't quite put a finger on...
@24mm the following are pretty much identical for IQ:
14-24 f/2.8
24 f/1.4
24 f/3.5 PC-E
I would definately say the 24-70 is *not* equivalent to the above @ 24. It is a decent lens but it is not a great lens like the 14-24 or 70-200 in the holy trinity.
Distortion-wise, the 24 1.4 and 24 PC-E are the lowest distortion.
So main thing you'll get with a 24 1.4 over your 14-24? The f/1.4.
That's not to say the 24 1.4 isn't a great lens, it is, it just isn't going to gain you a whole lot unless you really need 1.4. It's fairly large for a prime too.
utildayael wrote:
I would definitely say the 24-70 is *not* equivalent to the above @ 24. It is a decent lens but it is not a great lens like the 14-24 or 70-200 in the holy trinity.
Agree to your first part.
The 24-70 at the wide-end is truly excellent only from 28mm onwards; 24 only when absolutely needed and then stopped-down.
Would disagree that it is not one of the great Trinity; mine greatly disappointed at first; within 3 months after purchase it needed a return to Nikon for a faulty AF motor and other re-calibrations followed by a fine focus adjustment on my D700 and it's now one of the sharpest, contrasty lenses I own.
That's not to say the 24 1.4 isn't a great lens, it is, it just isn't going to gain you a whole lot unless you really need 1.4. It's fairly large for a prime too.
Well, it does let in 4 times as much light and while large, the other new G-primes are of similar size, but are all relatively less unwieldy in comparison to the 14-24 and 24-70.
