Welcome to the great 24mm versus 35mm showdown, a head-to-head comparison of two highly regarded lenses in the world of photography. Both are versatile wide-angle lenses, each with its unique strengths and attributes, making them coveted tools among photographers across genres.
Whether you’re an avid landscape photographer yearning to capture sweeping vistas, a street photographer seeking to encapsulate life’s candid moments, or an architectural photographer aiming for precision and grandeur, these lenses can be instrumental in shaping your artistic vision.
You may be asking, “Why compare these lenses?” The answer lies in their subtle yet significant differences in focal lengths. While the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 offers a broader field of view, perfect for capturing expansive scenes, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 provides a slightly narrower perspective, excellent for adding intimacy to your frames without losing the context. This comparison will delve deep into the character of each lens, offering insights that could be the key to unlocking your next level of creativity.
By joining us on this explorative journey, you will gain a robust understanding of the performance and characteristics of these two lenses, from their sharpness and aberration control to their handling of distortion and vignetting. You’ll become privy to how each lens performs in varying conditions, which will empower you to make informed decisions and optimize your photographic results.
So, sit back, grab your preferred beverage, and let’s delve into this insightful comparison. Not only will it help you in choosing between the two lenses, but it will also deepen your understanding of lens selection as a whole, which is an invaluable skill in your journey to capturing those perfect shots.
Let’s embark on this enlightening journey together!
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm F1.8G ED
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G ED
|Focal Range (mm)
|Nikon F (FX)
|Nikon F (FX)
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 and 35mm lenses presented here share some significant similarities. Both lenses have a maximum aperture of f/1.8, and both are fixed aperture lenses. This means the lenses maintain the same maximum aperture across the focal range, which is helpful for consistent exposure and depth of field. These lenses also share the same mount type, Nikon F (FX), and max format, 35mm FF, making them versatile for different Nikon camera bodies that support this mount type.
Starting with the 24mm lens, it is characterized by a wider field of view compared to the 35mm lens, which makes it excellent for capturing expansive landscapes, architecture, or interior shots where space might be limited. The maximum aperture of f/1.8 also allows for good low light performance and the ability to create a shallow depth of field, isolating the subject from the background. However, at this wider focal length, distortion might be more pronounced, particularly around the edges of the frame. This could either be a creative advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the desired effect.
On the other hand, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 offers a slightly more narrowed field of view, which some photographers might find to be a sweet spot for general-purpose photography. It still provides a fairly wide perspective but with less distortion than the 24mm lens. It also shares the same maximum aperture of f/1.8, allowing for similar low-light performance and control over depth of field. While it might not capture as much of a scene as the 24mm lens, it offers a more natural perspective, closer to the human eye’s field of view, which can be appealing for street, event, or documentary photography.
In terms of image quality, both lenses should deliver excellent sharpness and contrast due to their fixed and wide aperture design. However, it’s crucial to remember that other factors such as lens design and build quality will also play a significant role in the final image quality.
The verdict between the two lenses boils down to your specific requirements and shooting style. If you frequently shoot wide vistas, architectures, or indoor scenes, the 24mm lens might be more suitable due to its wider field of view. However, if you’re looking for a versatile lens suitable for a range of situations, from street photography to environmental portraits, the 35mm lens’s slightly narrower field of view and more natural perspective might be the better choice.
Design and Ease of Use
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm F1.8G ED
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G ED
|Diameter x Length (mm)
|Filter Thread (mm)
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8, with a diameter and length of ⌀77.5×83mm and a weight of 355 grams, is slightly larger and heavier than the 35mm lens. This could potentially make it a bit more cumbersome to carry around, especially during extended periods of walking or traveling. Additionally, the larger size and heavier weight might make the camera setup feel front-heavy, potentially leading to discomfort or difficulty in handling, especially during longer shoots. The larger size could also make you more conspicuous in situations where discretion is desirable, such as in street photography. Furthermore, the larger size might take up more space in your camera bag, leaving less room for additional gear.
On the other hand, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, with dimensions of ⌀72×71.5mm and a weight of 305 grams, is more compact and lightweight. This makes it a more portable option, potentially causing less fatigue during extended use. Its smaller size and lighter weight can contribute to a more balanced camera setup, making it easier to handle. Also, its more compact size can make you less conspicuous when shooting, and it would take up less space in your camera bag, allowing for more gear or a lighter load.
Given these differences, the superiority of one lens over the other depends on your specific needs and shooting style. If portability, balance, and discreetness are of utmost importance to you, the 35mm lens appears to be the superior choice due to its smaller size and lighter weight. However, if these factors are less critical to your style of photography, the 24mm lens could still be a worthy contender, offering its unique benefits.
Lens Mount and Barrel
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 and Nikon 35mm f/1.8 show some differences and similarities in their construction, particularly in their lens mount and barrel designs. Both these factors play a significant role in the durability, ergonomics, and overall user experience of the lens.
Starting with the 24mm lens, its lens mount is crafted from robust metal, which promises a solid connection to the camera body and enhances the longevity of the lens, particularly under heavy professional use. The added weather-sealing rubber gasket is a thoughtful touch, offering protection against dust, moisture, and other potentially harmful elements, especially in harsh environments or adverse weather conditions.
Moving on to its lens barrel, it employs sturdy plastic, which provides a lightweight feel without compromising durability. This choice of material is generally more budget-friendly and portable, though it might be slightly less robust than metal over time. The barrel’s sleek design not only looks appealing but also contributes to its ease of handling. An important feature of this lens is its constant length, regardless of zooming or focusing, which ensures a consistent balance and feel.
Contrastingly, the 35mm lens’s mount features dull-chromed metal, which also ensures a sturdy and durable connection with the camera body. The presence of a rubber gasket around the mount, similar to the 24mm lens, helps safeguard the lens against environmental factors.
The lens barrel of the 35mm lens, like the 24mm lens, is primarily made from plastic, thus offering similar benefits of lightness and affordability. However, it also sports a matte finish that resists scratches, enhancing its overall durability. The ergonomics of this lens is further boosted by its well-dimensioned, rubber-coated focus ring. Moreover, its Inner Focus design ensures that the lens maintains a constant physical size irrespective of focus adjustments, adding to its comfortable handling and usage.
Summing up, neither lens is categorically superior; their suitability depends on your specific requirements as a photographer. If you prioritize a sleek design and a robust metal mount, the 24mm lens could be a better fit. However, if scratch resistance and an ergonomically designed focus ring are more important, the 35mm lens might be the superior choice. Both lenses strike a balance between durability, cost, and weight, given their combination of metal and plastic components. Therefore, understanding the strengths of each lens is crucial for making an informed decision that aligns with your photographic needs.
When comparing the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 and Nikon 35mm f/1.8 in terms of weather sealing, we can see that both lenses have made efforts to protect against dust and moisture, but neither is fully weather-sealed.
The 24mm lens incorporates a rubber gasket around the lens mount, providing a degree of protection against dust and moisture, which could potentially enter the camera or lens body. This feature is especially beneficial when changing lenses in less than ideal conditions. However, the lens isn’t fully weather-sealed, meaning it may not withstand harsh weather conditions without extra precautions, such as using a UV filter on the front for additional protection.
On the other hand, the 35mm lens also sports a rubber gasket at the lens mount, a common feature in many Nikon lenses, offering protection from environmental elements. However, the lens falls short of full weather sealing, lacking internal seals at rings, switches, and the front of the barrel, and there’s no fluorine coating on the front element, which repels water, dust, and smudges for easier cleaning.
In conclusion, while both lenses provide a level of weather sealing, neither is fully weather-sealed.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 features a wide, ribbed focus ring that covers about half the lens body, ensuring a firm grip and an easy manual focus operation. Positioned on the front of the lens barrel, it’s easily accessible, allowing for smooth lens operation. The rubber design with parallel ribs enhances the tactile experience and grip. However, there’s a bit of slack in the ring, leading to a slight delay in focus when adjusted, which could make precise focusing at large apertures slightly challenging.
On the bright side, the lens has a short focus throw, requiring only a minor turn to move from the closest focusing distance to infinity. This lens includes a windowed distance scale marked in both feet and meters, but the depth-of-field scale only marks for f/16 due to the short focusing throw.
Meanwhile, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 features a single focus ring located in the middle of the lens barrel. The design includes a thick, rubberized surface, providing not only a firm grip but also a comfortable tactile experience. This design facilitates smooth manual focusing with thumb and index fingers. However, similar to the 24mm lens, there’s a slight play in the ring that might impact precise focusing. The lens also provides a windowed distance scale and a depth-of-field mark at f/16.
Both lenses demonstrate thoughtful design in terms of ring ergonomics and tactile feedback, but neither is without flaws. The slack in both focus rings might be an issue for photographers needing very precise manual focusing. However, the 24mm lens offers a short overall focus throw, which means quicker focusing, potentially balancing out the slight delay caused by the ring’s slack.
In conclusion, it’s a close call, but the 24mm lens has a slight edge due to the wide focus ring offering a more secure grip and the short focus throw, which provides faster focus adjustment.
Both the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 and Nikon 35mm f/1.8 display thoughtful design in their approach to switches and buttons, aiming for simplicity and user-friendliness.
The 24mm lens incorporates a single switch on its body, designated for autofocus/manual focus (AF/MF) selection. Placed conveniently on the side of the lens, this switch enables photographers to swiftly toggle between autofocus and manual focus modes. The M/A setting denotes autofocus operation, yet it still permits manual adjustments by turning the focus ring. This feature is particularly beneficial for close-up photography, where after autofocus has been established, subtle modifications to the focus point may be required. Despite having only one switch, the lens maintains a streamlined look and provides an intuitive, user-friendly experience.
Conversely, the 35mm lens also embraces a minimalist design in terms of switches, featuring an M/A and M switch. Situated on the side of the lens for easy access, this switch allows a quick transition between autofocus with manual override (M/A position) and full manual focus operation (M position). The clearly marked switch makes it straightforward to identify the current mode, adding to the overall efficiency of lens operation.
In essence, both lenses provide a seamless user experience with their simple yet efficient designs.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 is equipped with a filter thread measuring 72mm, larger than the previous Nikon 1.8 models which had a size of 67mm. The thread, composed of plastic, remains static during focusing, a feature that proves advantageous when using polarizing filters, as they necessitate a constant orientation to function optimally. The non-extending barrel during focusing facilitates the use of different filters, enhancing the user-friendliness of this lens.
Conversely, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 possesses a 58mm filter thread, a common size shared with numerous other Nikon lenses. This standardization makes it straightforward and economical to interchange filters across these lenses. While the thread is made of plastic, which may be prone to wear with frequent filter alterations, the non-rotating nature of the thread during focusing is a beneficial feature. This allows you to maintain the orientation of polarizing or graduated neutral density filters, saving time and effort, particularly under changing light or weather conditions. It also supports the use of petal-shaped lens hoods, such as the provided HB-70, which can reduce lens flare and safeguard the front element.
In summary, the 24mm lens, with its larger filter thread and non-rotating, non-extending barrel, offers greater convenience when using different types of filters. However, the 35mm lens may provide more cost-effectiveness and compatibility with a common filter size. Thus, the superior choice would depend on your specific requirements and existing lens collection.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 is furnished with a Nikon HB-76 hood, a component made of plastic that connects conveniently and sturdily to the lens via a bayonet fitting. Its petal design is typical for this type of lens and aids in minimizing undesired light, thereby reducing flare and enhancing image quality. Although plastic in construction, the hood is robust and provides substantial protection for the lens, potentially safeguarding it from severe damage in case of accidental drops. The hood’s design aligns with the lens’s aesthetics, contributing not only to the visual appeal but also to the overall performance and longevity of the lens.
On the other hand, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 comes equipped with a petal-shaped HB-70 lens hood. Like its counterpart, this hood is made of plastic and features a bayonet-style mount, demonstrating a blend of durability and lightness. It attaches smoothly and securely to the lens, preventing unwanted light flares effectively. This design choice by Nikon ensures the hood stays firmly in place during shooting sessions, enhancing its practical utility.
In summary, while both lens hoods share similar characteristics such as material and mounting style, the 24mm lens’s hood appears to offer a more substantial protective role. However, the 35mm lens hood also provides effective shielding against unwanted light flares.
Focusing and Optical Stabilization
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm F1.8G ED
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G ED
|Silent Wave Motor
|Silent Wave Motor
|Rotating Front Element
|Does not rotate on focusing
|Does not rotate on focusing
|Min Focus Distance
|Max Magnification (X)
|Full-Time Manual Focus
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 utilizes a Silent Wave Motor, providing quiet operation during autofocus. Its fast-focusing speed, moving from close focus to infinity in about a second, exceeds some other lenses, such as the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G. The lens is also effective in low-light situations, offering reliable autofocus acquisition even at the maximum aperture of f/1.8. However, there were instances of the autofocus not hitting accurately when using eye autofocus mode, suggesting some limitations.
For manual focus users, the lens offers an override feature at all times with a conveniently positioned large rubber focusing ring. The lens design ensures a constant length regardless of the focus and zoom settings, and the front element does not rotate during focusing, which is beneficial for using polarizers. The lens also exhibits minimal focus breathing.
In contrast, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 employs a ring-type ultrasonic system for autofocus, offering quiet, efficient, and relatively fast focusing. The lens maintains a consistent speed in low light or with slower AF lenses. It can focus from infinity to 35cm in approximately 0.5 seconds, which is comparably faster than the 35/1.4G lens.
However, there is some slack in the focus ring’s movement and a slight delay when changing focus direction, potentially causing inconvenience for manual focus users. Like the 24mm lens, the 35mm lens also maintains a constant length thanks to its Inner Focus design, but it shows visible focus breathing, which may be a concern for videographers.
In summary, while both lenses demonstrate commendable autofocus performance, the 24mm lens stands out for its speed, accuracy, and adaptability to different lighting conditions. However, the 35mm lens also boasts fast and dependable autofocus, despite minor drawbacks in manual focus handling. Therefore, the superior focusing performance would largely depend on your specific needs, with the 24mm lens excelling in fast and accurate autofocus and the 35mm lens offering consistent speed in various light conditions.
When it comes to optical stabilization, both the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 and Nikon 35mm f/1.8 share a common characteristic: they lack this feature. This isn’t unusual for prime lenses, particularly wide-angle variants like these, as they often capitalize on their larger maximum aperture to tackle low light situations, rather than relying on image stabilization.
Users will need to lean on their camera’s in-body stabilization (if available), utilize a tripod, or adjust camera settings such as ISO or aperture to maintain image sharpness at slower shutter speeds.
It’s essential to understand that wide-angle lenses are generally less susceptible to camera shake due to their shorter focal lengths and broader fields of view. While optical stabilization can be beneficial in scenarios like handheld shooting in low-light conditions or video recording, many contemporary cameras feature in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which works effectively with wide-angle lenses to minimize camera shake.
Moreover, wide-angle lenses are commonly used for types of photography that favor the use of a tripod, such as landscape and interior photography, thereby reducing the need for optical stabilization. In scenarios requiring handheld shooting, such as environmental photography, a fast lens with a large aperture can provide a cost-effective alternative to optical stabilization for capturing sharp images.
In conclusion, neither the 24mm nor the 35mm lens offers superior optical stabilization as they both lack this feature. However, the absence of optical stabilization in these wide-angle lenses should not be seen as a severe shortcoming. Instead, other factors like in-body image stabilization, camera settings, and usage scenarios can influence image sharpness and stability. It’s ultimately the photographer’s skill in utilizing these factors that will make the real difference.
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm F1.8G ED
|Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G ED
|2 ED and 2 aspherical elements + nano crystal coat
|1 ED glass element, 1 aspheric element
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 exhibits commendable control over chromatic aberration, displaying only minimal traces that are often hard to detect. Notwithstanding, it does present a subtle longitudinal chromatic aberration, with magenta and greenish hues noticeable in the foreground and background respectively, a phenomenon that largely fades away by f5.6.
In the realm of coma, the lens shows minor distortion, especially noticeable in astrophotography, where stars may take on a butterfly-like shape towards the edges of the frame. Spherical aberration, or “color bokeh”, also manifests itself as magenta and green fringes on slightly out-of-focus areas, though this effect also lessens as the lens is stopped down. Despite these slight aberrations, the 24mm lens demonstrates competent chromatic aberration management.
The Nikon 35mm f/1.8, however, showcases both lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberrations. Lateral aberration, seen as blue or purple fringes along contrasting edges, is relatively light and intensifies as the lens is opened wider. Longitudinal chromatic aberration is more problematic, causing green fringing in blurred backgrounds and magenta fringes in out-of-focus foregrounds, particularly conspicuous in high-contrast settings. This aberration is often stubborn to correct in post-processing.
The lens handles coma well, with signs of coma evident up to f2.8, particularly in extreme lighting conditions. Stopping down to at least f4 effectively reduces this aberration. Spherical aberration is largely controlled, though minor spherochromatism may be noticed in high-resolution images examined closely. The lens also exhibits slight yellow-blue color fringing at the corners, but this chromatic aberration is not of significant concern unless one is highly critical of this aspect.
While both lenses manage chromatic aberration to an extent, the 24mm lens’s performance in controlling this aberration is superior. The 35mm lens, despite its respectable handling of chromatic aberration, coma, and spherical aberration, does display these aberrations more noticeably under certain conditions. Hence, in terms of aberration management, the 24mm lens edges out the 35mm lens.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 presents formidable sharpness traits, with the center sharpness providing top-tier results from f/1.8, with a noteworthy spike in clarity at f/2.8, which is maintained up to f/11. The corners of this lens, while slightly softer at f/1.8, improve in sharpness as the lens is stopped down, achieving optimal sharpness at f/11. Additionally, this lens performs remarkably well in APS-C mode and delivers high-quality results on 45-megapixel full-frame cameras, especially when stopped down a bit in critical situations. Though the extreme corners may not be razor-sharp at all settings, the lens’s overall sharpness performance is, for most intents and purposes, impressive.
On the other hand, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 exhibits excellent sharpness across the board. The center sharpness is exceptional from f/1.8, improving further as the aperture is narrowed. While the corner sharpness starts relatively weak at f/1.8, it notably improves from f/4 onwards, achieving optimal balance at f/4. The lens’s field curvature at the DX-corner may require slight focus adjustment for peak resolution, but this does not significantly undermine its overall performance.
In essence, both lenses display high sharpness, but the 24mm lens’s ability to sustain remarkable sharpness across the frame from f/2.8 to f/11 gives it a slight edge over the 35mm lens, which reaches optimal sharpness balance at f/4. Thus, in terms of sharpness, the 24mm lens is marginally superior.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 is capable of generating a generally pleasing, smooth, and neat bokeh, even with its seven diaphragm blades. It displays slightly cleaner results compared to the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art lens, albeit with less background blur at the same aperture. Minor discrepancies can be noticed in the shape of the bokeh highlights, with some exhibiting a ‘cat’s eye’ effect, especially towards the frame’s corners.
At equivalent apertures, the Sigma lens shows more background blur and larger out-of-focus highlights, but its bokeh may exhibit ‘bullseye’ or ‘onion ring’ patterns, while the Nikkor’s bokeh takes on a somewhat gritty texture. By f/2.8, however, the bokeh of both lenses is nearly identical. Hence, the bokeh quality of the 24mm lens can be subject to individual preference; some may appreciate its cleaner but less blurred bokeh, while others may lean towards the Sigma’s more blurred but slightly patterned bokeh.
In contrast, the bokeh produced by the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 varies depending on the scenario and settings. It tends to generate a smoother bokeh in the foreground, especially when shooting at closer distances. However, as distance increases, the bokeh can become more “nervous”, with outlines appearing in the background, particularly noticeable in busy backdrops. The maximum magnification of 0.24x and minimum focus distance of 25cm allows for effective subject isolation, creating a pleasant out-of-focus effect.
Yet, achieving this level of isolation can be more challenging when the subject is positioned further away. Compared to the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, the 35mm lens’s bokeh rendering may not be as superior. Furthermore, the lens’s bokeh can occasionally appear uneven, particularly in the transition zone between in-focus and out-of-focus areas and far behind the focal plane.
In conclusion, while both lenses offer unique bokeh characteristics, the 24mm lens edges out with its smoother and cleaner bokeh, despite being less blurred. Therefore, in terms of bokeh quality, the 24mm lens appears superior.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 displays an admirable resistance to flare and ghosting, even when exposed to intense light sources, a testament to its robust design. The inherent challenges of wide-angle photography often include dealing with direct, strong light that can induce flare, ghosting, and a significant reduction in contrast. However, the 24mm lens manages these potential pitfalls admirably, with moderate flare and ghosting that is noticeably less than some other lenses under similar conditions.
Benefiting from a Nano coating on its glass elements, this lens effectively reduces ghosting and flare in the images, even when facing the sun near the frame’s center. Any minimal flares can typically be corrected using post-processing software like Lightroom. While it’s important to remember that no lens is completely immune to these issues, particularly in the presence of intense, direct light, this lens manages flare and ghosting impressively and additional techniques can be employed to further minimize these effects.
On the other hand, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 exhibits minimal flare and ghosting, even when put through rigorous testing against strong light sources. It produces noticeable flares or weak ghosts in very few instances, with minimal veiling glare, thereby maintaining the depth and richness of the blacks in the image. Even when facing the summer sun with exposure compensation, the lens does not produce ghosting or flares. This resistance to flare and ghosting is due to the super integrated coating (SIC) of the lens, which effectively reduces these artifacts.
However, at specific angles and especially when stopped down to f/16, some light streaks may appear in your frame, hinting at flare, but these occurrences are rare. While the contrast remains good when bright lights intrude the frame, moderate flaring might be observed. It’s also worth noting that using UV and other filters can potentially introduce more flares and ghosting into your images.
In conclusion, while both lenses demonstrate significant resistance to flare and ghosting, the 24mm lens, with its Nano coating and impressive handling of direct sunlight, has a slight edge in managing these effects over the 35mm lens, making it the superior choice in this aspect.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 experiences noticeable vignetting at wider apertures, particularly evident when used with a full-frame camera. At its maximum aperture of f/1.8, there’s a clear difference in brightness between the image center and corners, with the latter being a full stop darker. This effect is most prominent with in-camera corrections disabled. However, as the lens aperture is reduced, vignetting diminishes substantially. By f/2.8, the darkening of the corners is considerably less, and by f/4, it’s nearly eliminated.
While this might raise concerns for some photographers, it’s essential to remember that post-processing tools like Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom can effectively rectify this vignetting issue with their built-in lens profiles. Therefore, even though vignetting is present at wider apertures, it can be managed and doesn’t significantly affect the overall image quality.
Similarly, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 demonstrates considerable vignetting, especially at its maximum aperture of f/1.4, where it measures around 1.74 EV. As the aperture is reduced to f/1.8, vignetting decreases to around 1 EV, marking a noticeable improvement.
Again, post-processing software like Lightroom and DxO can help correct this issue. Intriguingly, the lens handles filtering well without exacerbating vignetting, even when using three stacked thick filters. However, keep in mind that the degree of vignetting can also be influenced by factors such as focus distance and specific shooting conditions.
In summary, both lenses exhibit noticeable vignetting at wider apertures, which is a common occurrence in wide-angle lenses due to the broader field of view and longer light path to the sensor’s corners. However, vignetting decreases as the aperture narrows. While the 24mm lens shows a significant improvement in vignetting by f/4, the 35mm lens still exhibits around 1 EV of vignetting at f/1.8. Consequently, the 24mm lens appears to control vignetting slightly better as the aperture narrows, giving it a minor advantage in this aspect.
The Nikon 24mm f/1.8 manifests a moderate amount of distortion, particularly some barrel distortion when focusing closely. This is not too conspicuous and stays within reasonable boundaries for a wide-angle lens like this. Notably, this distortion becomes more apparent when used on a full-frame camera and shot wide open at f/1.8.
Despite this, in-camera corrections or post-processing tools such as Photoshop’s Lens Distortion feature can effectively manage this issue. Although distortion is present, it generally doesn’t significantly affect the lens’s overall performance and is relatively typical for a lens of these specifications. Consequently, this should not hinder most photographic uses, but it’s crucial to consider these traits depending on your specific shooting needs.
On the other hand, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 displays a degree of distortion that is relatively moderate and manageable. When in-camera corrections are disabled or when shooting in raw mode, some barrel distortion becomes noticeable. When compared to other lenses, it shows similar distortion levels to the f/1.4G model and considerably surpasses its DX counterpart in terms of distortion control.
However, when pitted against the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, the 35mm f/1.8G falls short due to Sigma’s almost negligible visible distortion. It’s also important to remember that the level of distortion can vary based on shooting conditions and the subject distance.
In summary, both lenses exhibit a moderate degree of distortion, common in wide-angle lenses due to their wide field of view. However, the 24mm lens controls distortion slightly better when focusing closely, whereas the 35mm lens shows similar distortion levels to other lenses in its category but does not perform as well when compared to high-performing lenses. Therefore, in terms of distortion control, the 24mm lens appears to have a slight edge.
When it comes to wide-angle photography, the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 and Nikon 35mm f/1.8 both have their strengths and potential drawbacks, with the optimal choice depending heavily on the specific genre and the photographer’s preferences.
In the realm of landscape and architectural photography, the 24mm lens shines with its wider field of view, enabling grand sweeping vistas or large architectural structures to be captured in their entirety. It demonstrates superior control over chromatic aberration and distortion, which is a definite advantage in these genres where crisp lines and accurate color rendition are critical. Moreover, the noticeable vignetting can add a touch of creative drama to architectural and landscape shots by subtly drawing the viewer’s focus toward the center.
Astrophotography often demands lenses with excellent light-gathering capabilities, sharpness across the frame, and minimal aberration, areas where the 24mm lens stands out. Its superb sharpness, even at wider apertures, combined with its commendable aberration control, makes it a strong contender for capturing the night sky’s intricate details.
When it comes to environmental portrait and street photography, the 35mm lens may have the upper hand. Its narrower field of view can provide a more intimate frame while still including some contextual surroundings. Its slightly better size and weight parameters make it a more portable and discreet choice for candid street scenes, and its respectable handling of chromatic aberration and distortion will ensure that subjects are rendered accurately.
In summary, if your primary focus is on landscapes, architectural shots, and astrophotography, the 24mm lens, with its wider field of view and superior sharpness, aberration control, and distortion handling, is the better choice. However, if environmental portraits and street photography form a significant part of your work, the 35mm lens could be a more versatile and discreet tool.