10 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp and crisp - top lens for macro and portraits - VRII does it.None
I totally agree with "nexus" (6. september 2007 below)reviewed February 13th, 2008 (purchased for $1,300)
"Mr. review" do not know, what this is about. ALL MACRO LENSES DOES THAT, but it is not all camera and lenses, that shows it !!
Here we have an honest showing, and then he turnes it down.
I tryed my Tamron 90 mm on a Canon camera, but it did not show it, then I tried on a Nikon, AND IT SHOWED IT.
A real pity, that Mr. "review" ( 1. september 2007) does not understand it, because otherwise this lens would rate 9,9, and it really deserves it.
I love it for macro and the VR does it - I can shoot hanheld for a lot of close-up-shooting, but I am also using it for my wedding jobs, and it takes amazing portrait pics.
For the wedding flowers nothing can beat it.
But it has been a very expensive experience for me :) - because it showed me:
"Can a lens be SO sharp?"
After that I only buy pro lenses, because I really saw the difference according to my other lenses.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedTack sharp - from f/2,8 -...... yes from f/2,8Can not use filter
Tried it an hour on a photo course on my D200, and I was "sold."reviewed February 13th, 2008
It is so sharp even in the corners, that it beats my 12-24 in every aspect - well about equal at 24 mm, but from 14-23 it is in another world.
Have tried to buy it, but it is not easy to get a copy for the time being.
I honestly think that it will be a Nikon legend.
Mounted on a D3 it is nothing but fantastic (our teacher at the course had it).
It looks like it is better than primes - both Nikon and Canons primes - according to what you can read in reviews.
The only drawback is, that you can not use filters on it, and I have a lot of Lee-filters and Singh-Ray, that I would love to use on it.
But it is so good, that I buy it anyhow.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp from f. 2,8.see the review
Have shot with this lens 2 days now.reviewed May 18th, 2008 (purchased for $841)
Sharp allready from f. 2.8.
Sharper than Nikon 12-24 (from f.4 and down in the area 12-16), but Nikon 12-24 is more versatile - goes to 24mm and here - at 24 mm - the Nikon 12-24 shines.
As sharp in the center as the new Nikon 14-24 allready from f. 2.8, but not in the corners - the Nikon14-24 is a clear winner here.
Flare/ghosting: Worse than Nikon 12-24, but better than Nikon 14-24.
About the same, maybe less CA, than Nikon 12-24.
Today I suddenly could not get AF, whatever - turning of and on, but then took the lens off and mounted it again, and then the AF was OK again.
I have experienced that with one or two Nikon lenses, too, when the lenses was new, and I hope it is the same:
Some tiny metal in the new lens has to worn off.
After some days: Never seen the AF-issue again for the time being.
The buttom line: I am very happy with this lens.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp, fine detalis, and the special Zeiss-look (the colors)Manual focus
I bougth it used, but it is perfect (if you wonder about the price - lenses are very expensive in Denmark).reviewed February 5th, 2009 (purchased for $450)
It is sharp with very fine details and I love the special colors Zeiss gives.
It is not totally ghost/flare- free, but better than many others ( I am "a flare/ghost hater", even I do know how to work around it, I would better use my energy on other things, than working with that problem, and I think most photographers will say, that it is very, very fine in this area)
I am just sorry, that I never will be so familiar with manual focus, but that is me.
If you like manual focus I can really recommend this lens.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedFantastic bokeh, a very versatile lensNothing that matter
Never seen a so fantastic bokeh for a WA.reviewed August 11th, 2010 (purchased for $2,300)
CA: Saw some axial ("pink")at f. 1.4 in high contrast scenes - stopped down it disappeared, as axial CA does comparing to the lateral (blue), that does not disappear stopped down, but can be removed in software.
Very low distortion - if you do not put the lens too close to the face you can shoot portraits and get this fantastic bokeh if you have a fine background.
Read at the net, that the distortion was not higher than the Nikon 24mm t/s.
Sharp at f. 1.4, but not in the corners (of course not), but the corners are sharp at f. 2.8 and the farthest corners also at f. 4.0.
Vignetting at some scenes at f. 1.4 and small at f. 2.0 - gone at f. 2.8.
This is a simply super lens for nightshooting, for concerts, for landscapes (did not see any diffraction at f. 11, and only minor at f. 13 and f. 16, so it can be stopped down with excellent results) for buildings, for portraits in the field using it with DX-camera (36 mm).
This is a f. 1.4 lens, so you can get misfocus at this f.stop sometimes, but only seldom, but if the subject in the city scapes at night is a bit enlightened and contrasty it is there every time.
Not totally free for ghosting if you shoot it against a strong midday- sun, and the sun is not in the middle, but nothing at all with a weaker sun or the city lights = super.
some writes that the AF is slow. I do not agree, it is OK fast, but of course not as fast as the AF from the 200mm f/2.0 or the 70-200, which both are for sports also, so do not expect that.
And you can use your filters !!
The lens is now glued to my D700.
I have seen some writings about the resolution should not be he highest, I do not think so, the resolution from this lens is high, as I see it. It does not have the special colors as the Zeiss-lenses, but that is another story
Look also here about the sharpness and resolution:
"Great review and i bought the lens:)It is even sharper than my Zeiss 21mm and now i am selling it."
You can see what they recommend for print size with the lens here:
And a French site about resolution:
At the same site you can find the curves/resolution for Zeiss:
Lloyd Chambers wrote abot Zeiss 21, f/2.8 Distagon vs. this Nikon 24mm:
"It appears that in terms of f/2.8 and overall crispness that the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon maintains a slim lead. But by f/4 - f/5.6 the gap is so close that the most minor focus difference will come into play."
9 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp, light, inexpensiveSome distortion
If we only should consider what what get for our money, this lens deserves a "10-er", but there is no such parameter, so I gave it a 9-er, because of some distortion.reviewed November 4th, 2010
It is OK-sharp wide open, and really sharp at f. 2.8, and it is so light and easy to carry, and mounted on my new D3100, this set can stay in my pocket (jacket)
10 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp from f. 2.8Some distortion
For the price I have to give it a 10-er.reviewed October 25th, 2011 (purchased for $260)
It has also a very fine resistance against flare and ghosting - but you will get it if you press it with the sun, but at a lower "rate" than a lot of other lenses .
No lenses can compete in that area (flare/ghosting)with the" non flare/ghosting king" = The Nikon 28mm f/2.0 AI or AI-S (sorry, but it is manual).
It is sharper, than my 50 1.4 G from f. 2.8 to f. 5.6, from f. 8 they are equal.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedSimply amazing sharpness and bokehLoose some contrast when strong light hits the lens, but not worse as many others
This lens is so sharp - the only lens with the same sharpness I have shot with is the Nikon 200mm f/2.0.VRreviewed September 13th, 2012 (purchased for $1,133)
And the bokeh is also very fine.
If you have the money do not think twice, you will not regret it.
If sharpness means something it is "hard" now to use other lenses with weaker sharpness :)
I will use it for portraits and street-shooting, but also for detailed landscapes - even it is 75/150mm (FF)it is sometimes fine to use a small tele for parts of landscapes, and this lens will be amazing for this.
The price I payed is included the hood and special cap for this hood, and the overall price is OK for such a fine lens, and if you want it to be perfect I think you need the hood, because it can loose some contrast in strong light, but not worse than so many others (but there are some lenses, that are better in this special area)
I can only agree with the former reviewer when writing:
"I'm still incredibly excited to have it"
....and I can not wait to shoot with it again (just got it yesterday)