Nikon 24 1.4G or Tam 15-30 VC?

Would the prime be a bad choice for landscapes?Surely one could move back to include more scenery?
Woukd the prin be sharper?I reckon so as my Nikkor 50 1.8G is a bit sharper than my 24-70VC.
And I reckon this 24 1.4g would be a top quality piece of glass?
Any experience of either or both lads?

Recent tests on the net affirm that the 24 1.8 is a tad sharper than the 24 1.4. Add that to the price saving and you could get yourself a 20mm 1.8 which is considered aven better than the 24 1.8... Food for thoughts.

Great!!Tganks for the feedback.....I still want a 70-200 2.8 also and not sure if the Nikon would be worth the wad of cash over the Tamron!!
Somehow I think not!!
On the wide angle front.....dxo say the sigma 24mm 1.4 is 4 MP sharper on a d810(its what I use) than the 24 1.4 Nikon!!

If you are primarily shooting landscape with your wide angle, you might want to consider the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II. Since you'll probably be stopping down to maximize depth of field for landscapes, the speed of the lens should be a non-issue. I'm very pleased with mine. I really like the 12mm on the wide side too.

(FWIW I have the Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 to complete my "trinity". Great setup.)

I think the 15-30 would be better suited than the 12-24 just my opinion
I want the sharpest lens for my money and the 24 1.8 Nikon is rated really sharp!!
How are you liking the 70-200 VC?Hows the sharpness and autofocus and VC?

I am very pleased with the Tamron lenses that I have. Focus and sharpness have been exactly as I expected - a non-issue. I would make the same decision today after owning them for almost 2 years.

tamron is more flexible in many situations. 1.4 or even 1.8 isnt useful for landscapes. otoh if youre shooting landscapes, then you shoot stopped down and save some money and go with the nikon 18-35G, unless you might need a faster aperture at times. 24 is limiting you so if you dont have freedom to move and compose properly its a waste. cropping will lose its purpose of being "sharp" all lenses are sharp stopped down. dont forget you get vc with the tamron and thats useful.

I have an f/1.4 (non-Nikon) and about only use her wide open when light is low. That's either night, pre-sunrise or post-sunset photography. For those they're great. For normal landscape I rarely go below f/5.6 with a 24mm.

The 24mm is also not my most used for landscape. I rather carry my 18-35mm.

So if I had to pick between both, I'd go for the Tamron.

murphc13 said:

Great!!Tganks for the feedback.....I still want a 70-200 2.8 also and not sure if the Nikon would be worth the wad of cash over the Tamron!!
Somehow I think not!!
*snip*

Click to expand...

Seriously consider the Tamron 70-200mm VC. Reviews are excellent, $1,500 & 6 year warranty is a nice value

Thanks for the feedback guys.....I understand that the 15-30 zoom range is useful for composition but I want QUALITY and SHARPNESS and feels I'll get more from a prime.....I'm not a pro but my 50mm 1.8g is probably sharper than my tam 24-70 VC and that's a sharp lens

Note:Maybe the 15-30 will be as sharp as the 20 1.8,24 1.4/8 stopped down but I doubt the zoom will be as sharp as the prime....I could be wrong though!!!

murphc13 said:

Thanks for the feedback guys.....I understand that the 15-30 zoom range is useful for composition but I want QUALITY and SHARPNESS and feels I'll get more from a prime.....I'm not a pro but my 50mm 1.8g is probably sharper than my tam 24-70 VC and that's a sharp lens

Click to expand...

If it is purely for sharpness, the f/1.8 is not only a lot cheaper, she's sharper too, and quite some on a D810. I didn't check the other cams. If you want quality, and money isn't the issue, go for the Zeiss f/1.4 28mm.

If I was to spend the money on a wide angle prime purely for landscapes, I would get the Nikkor 20mm 1.8. (I know you asked about the 24mm, but it's just something else to consider)

murphc13 said:

Thanks for the feedback guys.....I understand that the 15-30 zoom range is useful for composition but I want QUALITY and SHARPNESS and feels I'll get more from a prime.....I'm not a pro but my 50mm 1.8g is probably sharper than my tam 24-70 VC and that's a sharp lens

Click to expand...

I can't imagine being much sharper than the 15-30mm. That lens amazes me every time even wide open. The belief is a prime will always be sharper but I don't think it'll make a difference in this case and the zoom range and the much wider focal length will be more beneficial.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Blacktop said:

If I was to spend the money on a wide angle prime purely for landscapes, I would get the Nikkor 20mm 1.8. (I know you asked about the 24mm, but it's just something else to consider)

Click to expand...

Yes and I'm leaning more towards the 20 1.8g now than the 24 1.4.Its cheaper and also a bit wider which will be useful for scapes.And J-See....money is always an issue.....im not rich by any means.I just want to be as happy as i can be with my purchase.I think the 20mm 1.8 will leave me in the "least regret".`Plus i could get the Tam 70-200 VC as well as the 20 1.8G for less than the price of the Nikon 70-200 VR2 so sounds good to me

You could always get the 20 and 28 voigtlanders for the price of the 20mm f/1.8. I own the 28mm and 58mm voigtlanders along with the 15-30 and 20 f/1.8. The 15-30 is the nicest lens I own, the 28/58mm voigtlanders are next, the 20mm f/1.8 good for astro and the only reason I haven't sold it.

If you're shooting point blank head shots the 20mm f1.8 rocks I have to admit. Outside family gatherings are perfect for this lens.

salukfan111 said:

You could always get the 20 and 28 voigtlanders for the price of the 20mm f/1.8. I own the 28mm and 58mm voigtlanders along with the 15-30 and 20 f/1.8. The 15-30 is the nicest lens I own, the 28/58mm voigtlanders are next, the 20mm f/1.8 good for astro and the only reason I haven't sold it.

If you're shooting point blank head shots the 20mm f1.8 rocks I have to admit. Outside family gatherings are perfect for this lens.

Click to expand...

Why is the 15-30 the nicest lens you own?How is the quality of it for scapes compared to the 20 1.8 for scapes?
Surely the prime will be better at 20mm??

Just to throw in what I chose and just bought. I bought the 14-24mm nikkor for versitility in focal ranges and it is also pretty darn sharp.

murphc13 said:

Why is the 15-30 the nicest lens you own?How is the quality of it for scapes compared to the 20 1.8 for scapes?
Surely the prime will be better at 20mm??

Click to expand...

The only downside it has is the weight. Check out the flickr pages. If you own a 15-30 already, then a 20 f/1.8 probably wouldn't be necessary unless you want a featherlight lens or need it for astro. I've never shot a 14-24 before, but many Nikon fanboys indicate the 15-30 is better as well.

Before you plunk down major dollars you ought to borrow or rent the 15-30, 20mm f/1.8, and the 20 and 28mm Voiglanders. Nikon has an older lens lens that is too expensive for them to make and get a profit that you may like as well (20-35mm) that is available for 600 bucks. Find yourself a camera buddy in your area and borrow lens.

Bill16 said:

Just to throw in what I chose and just bought. I bought the 14-24mm nikkor for versitility in focal ranges and it is also pretty darn sharp.

Click to expand...

I hear you. I had credit card miles that would go unused and got the 15-30 T with the miles on amazon and was flat out shocked. I wish my 70-300 vrg was that kind of sharp.