Just a few images I've taken with the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4:
...and one not taken with the Nikkor but my favorite of the trip (I have strange tastes, I get it):
Looks like the 24mm at 1,4 perform well but I’ve always had this question. True that the lens is indeed peerless but how often do we need to shoot at f/1.4? I have a 50mm at f/1.2 and I rarely ever shoot at f/1.2.
It just doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Could you elaborate on what can be accomplished with such a lens?
Let’s make some general statements:
1) The value of f/1.4 for exposure is the ability to use ISO-1600 when everyone else is pushing ISO-6400 or more.
2) The value of f/1.4 for composition is the ability to isolate in depth – which is still desirable for a wide-angle.
3) The cost of f/1.4 is a tax on image quality.
== Analysis ==
The perceived value of (1) and (2) varies from photographer to photographer. If you shoot people in their environments then these are the abilities you need the most to get through a day of photography. If you are also (in addition) a quality-minded photographer then (3) is a pain in the neck because it is in tension (1) and (2).
I can also say the same as you, I own a 1.4/50mm lens that I never shoot wide-open. That’s because of (3), I think the resulting images are too ugly for any use I may have.
So using a lens at f/1.4 makes perfect sense to me. This lens, the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G, is the first lens that I actually did shoot at f/1.4. It delivers speed and isolation at a very low cost in quality.
You do make a compelling argument. Well I’ll see if I can get a demo copy to play and see if this lens meets my need.
Currently got a nice windfall recently as well…
More qualitatively: there’s nothing like shooting wide, wide open. And 24mm offers a *wonderful* FOV. Nice shots, BTW.
No trackbacks yet.