Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5. Review from the reader Radozhiva

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5 review specifically for Radozhiva, prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Good afternoon, my name is Alexey Ovoshchnikov and today my review will be on the Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50 mm f / 3.3-4.5 lens. Here is my equipment.

This is a slightly unusual Nikkor manufactured from 1987 to 1995 for Nikon film cameras with interchangeable lenses. The lens uses an unusual combination of focal lengths from wide-angle 24 mm to normal 50 mm. The lens is fully compatible with modern older Nikon cameras, and retains full functionality. The lens is compatible with younger cameras without the possibility of autofocus.

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

This 24-50 is Nikon's first autofocus version without the letter “D”. There is also an updated D version of the Nikon Nikkor AF 24-50mm f3.3-4.5D, which came in due time to replace and was produced from 1995 to 2006.

I purchased this lens a couple of months ago, along with one interesting macro lens. They were sold together and therefore we can assume that I got 24-50 in the appendage.

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Briefly about the technical characteristics:

Optical design: 9 elements in 9 groups
Special multi-layer lens coating (Super Integrated Coating)
Focal length 24mm - 50mm
Maximum Aperture - f3,3-f4,5
Diaphragm design - of seven not rounded petals
MDF - 0.5 meters - (macro 1: 8.5)
Hood type - HB-3
The diameter of the filters used - 62 mm
Weight - 375 grams
Length - 82.5 mm

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

The lens has a good build and is easy to use. It weighs less than 400 grams and is comparable in size to the whale 18-55 mm. The lens has a metal mount, a convenient wide ring for manual focusing with a rubber overlay, a ring for manually switching aperture values. The zoom ring is also conveniently located and wide enough for such a compact lens and rotates about 90 degrees. The focus ring rotates about 60 degrees, but there is an unpleasant feature of the manual focus process with this lens.

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

The lens has a very strong travel beyond infinity. I have not seen stronger. A quarter of the focus ring travel is already beyond infinity! And this is with the selected 50 mm focal length, and even worse at 24 mm. Two thirds of the move will be beyond infinity. The situation is complicated by the fact that the selected focal length does not correspond to the focusing distance scale in any way! I don't know how this could have happened, but if you believe the scale of the lens itself, then at 24 mm focal infinity is between 0.6 and 0.8 meters! While by 50 mm it is already closer to reality and is at the mark of 3 meters…. This fact surprised me and, of course, did not make me happy. In practice, this means that focusing on infinity manually in one movement will not work and you will have to search. Of course, not all lenses are required to be para-focal and maintain infinity when changing focal lengths, but this lens has multiple inconsistencies ...

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

I want to add right away that the lens was not repaired. Maybe Nikkor 24-50 are all like that, or maybe a bad batch in production. Another drawback of the lens that came to me is two malfunctions associated with the operation of the diaphragm at once. The first malfunction is electronic. The carcass does not adequately perceive the F values ​​when changing focal points (tested on D600) in the viewfinder and on the secondary monochrome display, after the F3,3 value, you get sharp F28 already by 4,5 mm, then by 30 mm you suddenly get F4 and after 35 mm again F4,5!

Having written this from my old experience, I decided to check the lens behavior on the recently cropped Fujifilm S3Pro camera, and everything was simpler there, the camera took F3,3 right away after F4,5 about 28 mm of focal length and was available up to 50 mm only F4,5. Likewise on a professional sprinkled Nikon D300. In practice, this means some errors. exposure in the finished photographs. From my experience I will say that these errors within the half-stage do not interfere. A possible way out is not to use a value of aperture above F4,5.

The lens is primarily a landscape painter and I often shot on f4,5-f 7.1. Why not use the F8-F9 and so on downgrade you ask? The reason for this lies in the second malfunction of the diaphragm of this plain model (or the model as a whole). The fact is that the lens simply does not work out (it does not have time to close the aperture stronger than f 7.1. A little overexposure is already visible on F8, but everything is no good at f 11. You will get a strong overexposure because the aperture simply does not keep up with the camera. That is the shutter opens, and the aperture closes gradually, rather than instantly as required. shutter speed a few seconds or longer, you can get out of a problem situation, but a fact is a fact. The lens does not work off aperture values ​​below f 7.1. This happens with lenses that are 20+ years old, mechanics wear out or become dirty.

Let's move on to the most important thing, what exactly is this lens giving out for a picture. Does it make sense at all in this lens today or is it a relic that will not show anything good? In April, I was on vacation in beautiful places and took this lens with me as a shirik. I wanted to bring good landscapes, and I took the lens to drive. While still at home, having discovered the above-mentioned minuses and malfunctions, I knew what and how to twist in order to get a normal output result. Indeed, everything turned out not bad, and the lens justified and even exceeded my expectations. An unpleasant first impression gave way to a good one. The image is quite sharp already with the frame open in the center, but closer to the edges of soap. Covering the diaphragm corrects the situation well. I shot on F 5.6-F 8 and achieved the desired result at infinity. On open you can shoot people, sharpness just right. Yes, it’s limited, you can even use it as a portrait in full frame.

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5

In general, the lens is well suited for landscape photography and architecture. Of course, this is not a very good architect, especially by today's standards, but a little work with the file at the development stage will significantly improve the result. Both distortion and vignetting are good at manually correcting. There is no default profile for this lens. Too old model.

After processing

After processing

Before processing

Before processing

Also, the lens may be some kind of zoom on the crop, but that's just the lack of versatility, and it poorly catches the focus on infinity on the crop. I do not know why. However, for review, I filmed something with him on D300. In the photo gallery with this lens and D300 You will find several macro photographs taken using special extension macro rings. All three were used macro rings to minimize MDF. And here the lens is not bad! Not very contrast and too much XO but with sharpness everything is pretty good!

I would like to add that for all the minuses, I liked the lens and 24-50 mm on a full frame is more convenient and practical on vacation than 18-35 mm. For wide-angle shooting, there are more serious fixes and modern zooms, but there are already completely different prices.

Archive с Nikon D300. Archive с Nikon D600.

List of all Nikon FX 24-XXX autofocus lenses:

  1. Nikon 24-50 mm 1: 3.3-4.5 AF Nikkor
  2. Nikon 24-50 mm 1: 3.3-4.5D AF Nikkor
  3. Nikon 24-70 mm 1: 2.8GN AF-S Nikkor ED Nano Crystal Coat SWM IF Aspherical
  4. Nikon 24-70 mm 1: 2.8EN AF-S Nikkor ED Nano Crystal Coat SWM IF Aspherica VR + its modification of the 'Nikon 100th Anniversary Edition'
  5. Nikon 24-85 mm 1: 2.8-4D AF Nikkor IF Aspherical Macro (1: 2)
  6. Nikon 24-85 mm 1: 3.5-4.5G AF-S Nikkor ED SWM IF Aspherical
  7. Nikon 24-85 mm 1: 3.5-4.5G AF-S Nikkor ED VR SWM IF Aspherical
  8. Nikon 24-120 mm 1: 3.5-5.6D AF Nikkor
  9. Nikon 24-120 mm 1: 3.5-5.6G ED AF-S Nikkor SWM VR IF Aspherical
  10. Nikon 24-120 mm 1: 4G N AF-S Nikkor ED VR SWM IF Aspherical Nano Crystal Coat

Catalog of modern lenses for Nikon can see here.

About prices ... Normal prices for this lens are at the level of 50-100 euros on e-bay. It is not often found on the secondary market and prices are overstated due to imaginary rarity. Thank you all for your attention, write in the comments your opinion or about your experience from 24-50.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 33, on the topic: Nikon AF Nikkor 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5. Review from the reader Radozhiva

  • Michael

    Typos:
    "Produced between 1987 and 1995"
    "I want to add right away that neither I myself have time for me"
    "There are no traces of repair, probably it was made like this"

  • Denis

    probably it was dismantled nevertheless

  • Onotole

    How can you be sure that they didn’t repair it, when even in the pictures you can clearly see the downed slots on the fixing screws !?

    • Alexey de Paris

      Hello, are you sure that your eyes are not lying to you? I've looked and wrote it as it is. How do you like the review in general? picky you are our ...

      • Onotole

        The review is not bad, too much emphasis on the features of a particular instance and not the model in general.
        A photo with processing with the vaults of the temple is a controversial processing, the shadows are raised too much, half the size would be just right, and so the contrast fades. I liked the photo with the dish against the sunset background, in that series of photos the evolution of the implementation of the idea is clearly traced. The word bring should be written through z, in this case.
        By the way, why are you constantly trying to switch to a discussion of personalities? And in general, do you allow yourself such remarks bordering on rudeness?

        • Alexey de Paris

          Thanks for this, in fact, I painted everything in detail with defects. The lens is so entertaining that it was just funny to describe all of its jambs. I am for the objectivity of comments, and constructive criticism, and when it seems that the main thing in the whole review is what you personally think and see on the cog, then the readers get the false impression that there’s nothing more to say. This is still primarily an informative site. Do you have, for example, experience using this or similar lenses?

          • Arkady Shapoval

            Calm, only calm. To

            I have experience using such lenses.

            24-50 is not the most budget lens, but the class is significantly higher and should be devoid of the described problems. At one time, it was one of the few lenses that could use 24 mm focal length. In fact, from 1987 to 2000 there were no other station wagons with a 24mm focal length at the long end. In 2000, the Nikon 24-85 / 2.8-4D appeared. (20-35 from 1993 and 17-35 from 1999 does not matter, because this is a different class, but even if you take into account 20-35, then until 1993 there were no alternatives).

            24mm is a focal transition between wide-angle and ultra-wide-angle. It was possible to find information that it was ultra wideangle and for a small price it was a very good lens.

          • Onotole

            I specifically did not hold such a model in my hands, but I worked with a sufficient number of old (la and new) Nikon optics to know that even some of the described problems with aperture and focusing could not be from the factory. It's even hard to imagine. The conclusion suggests itself - the copy is faulty, most likely - after a curved repair.

  • Michael

    In 7 photos, the lower and left screws show damage or it seems so

    • Alexey de Paris

      again it seems ... how is the review itself?

      • Michael

        The photo shows, but I do not hold it in my hands. Good review, thanks

  • Pawel

    Hello, the review is good in the style of Arcadia, the photos have become noticeably better compared to the previous one (just anyway, you don't need to insert almost the same type closer and further, a different angle). For me, you really praised this 2x zoom, so you can call anyone with 24mm “wide for a landscape”. For its time, it was probably 24mm, but now it's nothing special, I saw it on Avito for $ 50, looked at it and took 24-120mm for $ 70, since I did not see a difference in the range of 24-50, except for the best aperture for a fraction of a stop. Write more you have a lot of different techniques. Thanks for your review. ZY I also thought to write 35-105 MF for one patient, but not yet matured))

    • Alexey de Paris

      good afternoon, of course 24-120 for $ 70 it was a great option! I myself would not give up 24-120 for a full frame. first version of AF without stabilizer or version of VR?

      • Pawel

        Of course, without a stub, the first version, it seems to be better optically. Our guy gave it for 5000 rubles, used it on film, there was only a problem, he wrote 38mm on EXIF ​​at all the focal points, so there will be errors in the exposure with the flash, for which I got a discount, and the glass was valid, I don’t understand why this 24-50, but for narrow tasks

  • Onotole

    Arkady, please tell me, here are different outsiders trying, making reviews, writing articles. Some of them are as full and useful as yours. And in the list of lenses, which, I am sure, is used as a reference book by every beginner (and not only) photographer of the Russian Internet (and not only) there are none of them! Yes, of course, there is a link “Reviews from readers ...” but it opens a feed in which it is not convenient to search for anything. And this review, like many others, will sink into oblivion and it will be possible to fish it out only with the help of Google, and even then - you can successfully search there only knowing exactly what you are looking for.
    And how wonderful it would be if everything was in one list of links in the “lenses” section, or if you don’t think it is possible to combine third-party reviews with your own - then just the same structured list of “nikon fixes”, “nikon-zooms”, "Kenon fixes", etc.
    We, readers of Radozhiva, (and now, contrary to my usual custom, I have the audacity to speak not only for myself, but for most visitors to the site, and I hope they will support me), of course, I have no right to demand anything from you. Then let it be an urgent request.
    And for me personally, it's just a cry from the heart. I just really love Radozhiva.
    Regards, Your Anonymous.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Well done. In general, there is a list herejust need to make a structure.

      • Onotole

        I agree, but the last straw to write this letter was what I was looking for just 15 minutes, but could not find exactly this link, although I knew about it)))
        Yes, with a structure similar to the "lenses" section, it would be divine.
        And yet - by this link - not all reviews of third-party authors, some of them for some reason did not get there.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Everything seems to be there. Actually, they are always added there. Suddenly, if something is missing, I will be glad if you indicate.
          And there is a link to the page in every review for the word “prepared".

  • Life

    I have such a lens with the letter D te; the distance scale without a window and the aperture lock are flat under the nail.
    checked for the above in the review flaws with the D750 camera
    1. poppy open diaphragm decreases without jerking 24 / 3,3; 28 / 3,5; 33 / 3,8; 35 / 4,0; 40 / 4,2; 45 / 4,5
    2. I do not observe overexposure on closed diaphragms, the illumination remains the same up to 32.
    3. Infinity is approximately 10 meters away at the same distance at all focal lengths. By sharpening the object at 10 meters, there remains an additional 2-3 mm of the ring travel until it stops, and this is not the same for the entire range of focal lengths.
    4. Compare and Sigma 24 / 2,8 both on 24 mm
    sharpness is equal, distortion, soap at the edges is equally minimal in both,
    nikon is faster and quieter (possibly due to better condition)
    + sigma dimensions and weight but this is balanced by the versatility of nikon
    the conclusion as a universal standard is very good, usually I use 35-70 / 2,8 for it, of course, the quality is at the fix level of 50 mm, but this one is 24-50 and less and almost twice as easy and the wide angle is +++.
    PS:
    Nikon 24-50 40 euro
    Sigma 24 / 2,8 70 euro
    Nikon 35-70 / 2,8 180 euro

  • Victor

    Here's a science for those who like to test equipment: first, we take the gadget “by the folds” and drag it to the service center for testing. After a verdict by the master - please, for a test! And, no need to drive a blizzard on Nikon! In this company, hands ... they DO NOT WORK!

  • Something like this

    The screws are 100% twisted, the author did not notice this because of inexperience, and because of inexperience as a reviewer, he suggested that defects in his copy extend to the entire series, which of course could not be by definition :)

    • Ivan

      You read the comments, there is practically no one who buys new equipment. They take it from hand, and then write angry posts against manufacturers.

  • Apexander Borisovich

    Professionally engaged in repairs from 1972 to 2005.

    The lens was disassembled, with the extraction of the internal moving
    block with lenses.
    A "childish" error was made during assembly.
    The outer focusing ring is paired with the inner
    multi-thread lens block.
    If, during assembly, you make a mistake with the beginning of the correct "entry" into that
    or the other side, we get “overshoot” at infinity.
    Incorrect aperture value due to incorrect
    assembly.
    Delay of “closing” aperture to the set value -
    - a weakened spring.

  • Ilya P

    For a long time I shot with this lens (without D) on film, a little on digital (D70, D200).
    Not pretentious, but a good enough lens.
    I shoot almost exclusively landscapes, aperture 8-11, tripod or monopod.
    Compact, not heavy, it covers 90 percent of my needs and, accordingly, constantly sat on my camera (F80, F90)
    I gave my own to a friend and now I'm thinking, should I buy it again?

  • Andrew

    Good afternoon. Thanks for the review.
    1. There is practically no flight beyond infinity on my copy of this lens.
    2. All shutter speeds at all aperture values ​​​​are worked out correctly by the lens.
    3. I did not notice any problems with focusing. They simply don't exist.
    4. For test shooting, it is advisable not to wind a protective filter on the lens. Plus it's a cheap filter.
    5. For some reason, the emphasis here is on technical details, but how the lens “draws” is of no interest to anyone. This is an excellent lens. It produces a contrasting saturated picture both in bright sun and in low light conditions. Its undoubted plus is an excellent study of penumbra. I will not exchange it for any modern lens.

    All good.

  • Sergey Voytyuk

    This lens lives with me with nikkors 2.8 / 35-70, 4 / 70-210, 1.4 / 50 and nikons F100 and F4. I really like him. It can shoot both phantasmagoric portraits and stunning landscapes. The lens is just amazing. On film, it gives a simply magnificent picture. Despite the fact that I have as many as five digital cameras, I started shooting on film again. And the result pleases me.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2018/06/nikon-af-24-50-mm-3-3-4-5/

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2018/06/nikon-af-24-50-mm-3-3-4-5/