On 25 Jul 2002 09:25:19 -0700, ewrcoflyer@hotmail.com (EWR COflyer) wrote:

>I have a AF NIKKOR 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5. I have been considering the
>purchase of a fast WA prime lens.

This is often less necessary that it would appear, since
most fast WAs do not perform well at wide stops, and
WAs can often be hand-held at MUCH slower shutter speeds
than longer lenses, making them effectively faster than
their max. f-stop would indicate.

>I've seen a lot of prime 24mm 2.8's, but other than just a tiny bit
>faster, what would be the benefit vs. a zoom? at 24 my zoom seems to
>exhibit a perceptable amount of barrel distortion. I don't normally
>notice such things as I take a lot of landscape pics, etc, but this
>was an an urban setting w/ lots of straight lines that no longer
>appeared straight when viewed thru the lens. Would the prime have this
>issue also, or would it at least be lessened?

It would be different. In the case of the recent Nikkor
24mm f2.8, there is very little linear distortion at the
frame edges, but moving inward some toward the image center,
there is considerable barrel distortion ("wavy-line", if
followed it to the edges...). While non-zooms often offer
better sharpness at a given aperture wider than f8-11 or
so than a zoom, this is not always true. The 24mm f2.8
Nikkor is a bit soft in the corners wide open, useable
at f4, but noticeably better in the corners by f5.6;
the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 Nikkor zoom out does this, with sharp
corners by f3.5-4 at 24mm (but with more obvious linear
distortion).

>I'd love to go w/ something really fast, i.e. a 1.4 or something like
>that, but there's no way I am going to spend $1k+ on a 28mm 1.4

Look at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html for evaluations
of Nikkors - mostly based on performance at the first "good"
stop for the lens type (given in the header notes for the types).
Or, the good "speed" WA Nikkors (based on the speed of
first good stop and hand-holdable shutter speed together) are:
16mm *f3.5*, 20mm *f2.8*, 24mm f2.8. 28mm
f2.8 *AIS MF*, and the late 35mm f2 *MF* (all of these are
good wide-open except the 20 and 24, and perform better
at their wide stops than the faster available versions).
Others in the list that are also excellent speed WAs: the
Sigma 8mm f4, Voightlander 12mm f5.6, Canon 24mm f1.4, and
Leitz double-aspheric 35mm f1.4. There are undoubtably more
examples, but I haven't tried them...

>So, would there be a *real* noticable difference of a prime 24 2.8 and
>a zoom at 24 3.3???

Dunno - I never bothered trying the too-short-zoom-range
24-50 Nikkor...

>The Sigma 28, 24, & 20 1.8's are very nicely priced and actually have
>a lot of positive comments that I have seen so far.

It is unlikely that these are as good as Nikkors wider than
f8, but you never know until you try... (sales photos in
Sigma ads using some of these look unimpressive at the
edges/corners if you look carefully...).