Out of the f/1.8G Six-Pack, the 24mm f/1.8G and the 85mm f/1.8G stand right at the top, can't really tell which is better due to the different focal lengths, followed by the 20mm f/1.8G for the difficulty of designing a good one, then the 50mm f/1.8G, the 28mm f/1.8G with mild mustache distortion at 3/4 frame area, and lastly the 35mm f/1.8G with more pronounced mustache distortion at the DX frame area.
All are very good performers for their price, only if one can accept the last two with the mustache distortion.
Own the top 5 and might get the last one when the opportunity comes when there is a rebate or sale to complement my 35mm f/1.4A on a back up camera.
For a serious photographer who is just starting up, should get these six-pack rather than get a couple of zooms in these focal range, because one can shoot day and night, for bokeh (of course don't try to compare bokeh with the 1.4E equivalents) or sharpness that most zooms can't match even those with gold rings (because zoom is always a compromise, there is just no way to get optimum performance across all focal length).
Sharpness isnt really a problem for modern zooms. Hasnt been for a long while.
Plus even if that wasnt the case, with computers we have sharpening algorithms now.
For a new photographer who really doesnt have a clue what he wants to shoot, I'd probably recomment something like Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f3.5-4.5, Nikkor AF 35mm f2 [D], Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro, and Tamron 70-210mm f4 as an affordable but flexible and optically satisfying starter setup.
AF-S 24mm f1.8 is now on the very top of my want to have Nikon F lens list, now that I acquired a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro .
Keiththom wrote:
Keep Posting away. I'm thinking this lens will be my next lens for when I don't want to lug around the 14-24 on long hikes.
Thank you for the encouragement 24/1.8g may be stronger than 14-24 at 24mm, but I am not sure, I have not compared. It is certainly far better than the old 24-70mm at 24mm
What I really would like to know about this lens is how it compares to the Nikon 14-24, and especially at the minimum focusing distance while photographing small objects. I need a lens to show small reptiles and their habitat in the background. Being light is a plus since I'm backpacking into remote locations. The Nikon 24 1.8 focuses a couple inches closer than the zoom and it is lighter. But since I do not have one, I have no idea how it compares in image quality with the big zoom?
After I wrote the above, I went to DXOMARK and compared the two lenses. When I compared this lens to my 14-24, the 24 1.8 seems like a clear winner. They also had the following to say about the lens:
Tested on a Nikon D810, the new Nikon 24mm f/1.8G achieves an outstanding overall DxOMark score of 41 points. That puts it into the top ten (8th place, in fact) for all lenses tested on the D810, which is pretty impressive for a wide-angle optic.
Counting all lenses up to 35mm, the Nikon 24mm f/1.8G ranks in second place, only a single point behind the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 with 42 points. For the type of 15mm to 24mm wide-angle lenses preferred for much landscape or architecture work, however, the new Nikon 24mm f/1.8G is out on top, achieving the best sharpness and chromatic aberration scores, with other lens metrics comparable to its wide-angle rivals.
The new Nikon 24mm f/1.8G sits alongside the more expensive $1997 Nikon 24mm f/1.4 version in the Nikkor line up. Although both offer similar features, the f/1.4 version allows for an extra stop of light transmission while still boasting the same minimum f/16 aperture as the 24mm f/1.8G at f/16. We’ll be comparing the performance of these two Nikon 24mm primes later in this review."
So It's still number 1 on the lenses I'm considering.
