Nikon 24mm f/1.4G ED By Nasim Mansurov 93 CommentsLast Updated On July 2, 2020«1. Overview and Specifications2. Optical Features3. Lens Comparisons4. Summary5. More Image Samples6. Reader Comments»
Nasim, thanks for the review. I have a Z6 and I’m trying to decide between this lens (if I can get a cheaper used version) and the Nikkor Z 24 mm/f1.8 S lens, which is lighter and cheaper. I would use it for trekking and mountaineering, where weight is clearly important, however the f/1.4 seems like it might get me some shots in low light that I might not get with the Z lens? Let me know what you think.
I had the 14-24 2.8 but sold it. I loved its zoom range, resolution, sharpness right in to the corners, contrast, and lovely color rendition. I didn’t care about the weight. I hated its tendency to flare so easily as I like shooting contre-jour. What made me sell it was the distortion. Even well away from the corners, shapes like round berries were pulled noticeably out of shape, even at 24mm, and I found this visually unsettling – introducing an unnatural tension in me when viewing such photos. I bought the 18-35 G as a hopeful replacement but returned it after a few dozen test shots. I found the color balance too cool, and sharpness away from the central 60-70% was lacking. It was very soft and fuzzy in lower right and upper left. I guess that could be one element decentered, but I really need corner-to-corner sharpness with no noticeable distortion, and it also showed quite obvious barrel distortion. I now have my sights set on the 24mm 1.4 G, hoping it will deliver. I shoot landscapes about 70% at 24mm, so I really need a good lens here or I might have to jump ship from Nikon to find one elsewhere.
ps: The 18-35G would make a phenomenal DX lens as it should be pin sharp corner to corner. For DX, if you like great central sharpness and the versatility of the zoom range, and don’t mind soft corners and edge 10-15% fine. I’d be forced to crop out the softness, and then it wouldn’t be ultra wide zoom anymore.
Typo: Sorry, autocorrection had another idea of your name, Nassim.
Nassem, your reviews are not only full of knowledge but as well an aesthetic pleasure, pretty much outstanding to all other review sites I know so far. You explain something and just deliver the right picture for it. Simply amazing!
I had the lens for 6 or 7 years and exchanged it for the new Sigma version. Although I’m happy with the Sigma in terms of optics, I recall an accident with the Nikkor, falling down a wooden chair of around 12 or 14 steps, ending on concrete – and there was just a dent in the filter thread although all caps were in different places but each in one piece.
The lens itself remained filly functional, no bad noise inside, focussing just like before. So, everybody wondering about the huge price difference: building a lens to withstand an abnormal treatment and doing so by using magnesium cast bodies comes at a price. If you’re not afraid of bad treatment, you can get two Sigmas instead of one Nikkor, but my buyer of the 24/1.4G is a happy person, I’m very sure of. And the lens itself was a pleasure to use – except these badly designed front and rear caps :) The rear cap (that’s general for all Nikkor lenses, not just that one) is either too tight or too loose and the front cap easily slips away.
Thanks for the excellent review Nasim.
It confirms my opinion that f1.8 lenses are the best compromise – to me.
Budget wise, performance wise as well, and finally the weight in the bag that is an important factor for me.
All my primes are f1.8 except the Sigma 35mm and I must say I never missed the 0.4 stop.
Kind regards Bernd
Thanks Nasim! Your site has gotten better than DPReview and I trust the writers at your site more now. They somehow have become too commercial-aware.
I have been very happy with all Nikon lenses since 2010. I think the main reason why Nikon has fallen back is not the products but management. Nikon has brilliant engineers, but really bad top management.
I have owned this lens for nearly three years. I have used it almost exclusively for landscape work on a D810. My experiences have been very consistent with this review. It has been a rock solid performer and the images are among the best I have captured with my D810. It’s one of my ”go to” lenses when I’m trying to get the most I can out of the camera, and I would not trade away for anything else right now. Because of the subject matter I shoot and the fact that I use MF more often than AF anyway, I can’t really add much about the AF speed or hit rate for moving subjects. It’s been great for my uses.
Nasim, in this case i happen to disagree with you.
i really like the 24mm angle.
I have had and have all these 24mm lenses 14-24mm f2.8G; 24mm 1.4G , 24mm PCE and the 24mm 1.8G..
i sold the 24mm PCE and the 24mm 1.4G.
all thes 24mm lenses have there own specific strange behaviour..
The winner is for me the 24mm 1.8 G- only the build quality is not that good and i am sure coatings could be improved, but are very good.
Optics are good and without any special treatment you are able to make sharp pictures in any circumstance.
flat field is sharpness is were it stands out, compared to the 24mm 1,4G
Less aberrations than the 24mm 1.4G- nice out of focus rendering
Wanted to say about the 24mm 1.8G ;
Flat field of sharpness is were it stands out – especially at infinity.
i think the 24mm 1.4G is ready for an update.
The best 24mm 1.4 lens at this moment is probably the new Zeiss ZF 24mm 1.4 but i have not tested it yet.
The image quality of newest 24mm f1.8G is superb! Its sharp, light and the fastest lens of Nikons f1.8G. So its great lens for nature photography and evening scenery.
For portrais, weddings etc. i would buy sigma 24mm f1.4 Art – It has an amazing drawing and blur at max. aperture, as well as the nikon.
I want to know if the recent 24mm f1.8 G image [email protected] f/5.6 to f/7.1 is near that of the expensive f/1.4 version for landscape photography – I have not found any reviews.