Let's just make an assumption for a moment that you're an FX user and you work at 24mm a lot (I do). It's a natural focal length for getting depth into your pictures (foreground/background) without going "too wide." Indeed, I'd say that 24mm is the modern "wide angle go to focal length" (it used to be 28mm; long before that it was 35mm).
With Nikon's recent introductions, the FX user is now presented with a plethora of choices of how to get there: 24mm f/1.4G, 24mm f/2.8D, 14-24mm f/2.8G, 16-35mm f/4G, 17-35mm f/2.8D, 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D, 24mm f/3.5 PC-E, 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G, 24-85mm f/2.8-4D, and 24-70mm f/2.8G. Holy motherload, Batman, what should we put on the Batcamera?
Let's do some pruning right up front. I don't believe the 24mm f/2.8, 24-85mm f/2.8-4, and 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 cut the mustard. All are optically inferior to the other choices at 24mm, in my opinion. That still leaves us seven choices, so we need to winnow the list more. The sad thing is that, even with all these choices, not all types of photographers are going to be satisifed with their choice! Let's take a photographer's look at the options:
- Landscape photographer. The clear choice is the 24mm PC-E. It is sharp edge to edge even on a D3x (non-shifted), plus gives you the ability to control DOF more. You don't need fast apertures or AF, and the lens has filter rings. Slam dunk. Honorable mention: 16-35mm f/4G, 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D, and 24-70mm f/2.8G.
- Event photographer. Here's the unsatisifying choice: 24-70mm f/2.8G. The satisfaction falloff comes because of the lack of VR. While not always necessary, it would be handy to have and make this lens a slam dunk. Honorable mention: 24mm f/1.4G for helping remove backgrounds.
- Sports photographer. Split decision: 24mm f/1.4G or 24-70mm f/2.8G. Depends upon the venue. Inside and dark? The 24mm f/1.4G. Outside or decently lit? The 24-70mm f/2.8G, mainly for its versatility to do other things. Honorable mention: 14-24mm f/2.8G.
- Street photographer. No clear choice unless we're talking about night photography. Technically, you need a good, accurate DOF scale and a long focus throw to do "zone focusing." The Zeiss 25mm starts to look better than the current Nikkors in that respect. Honorable mention: 24mm f/1.4G (especially for low light street work).
- Star trails, Aurora, other night work. Probably 24mm f/1.4G due to coma correction and fast aperture. Needs to be tested to be sure.
- Architectural photographer. 24mm PC-E.
- All prime photographer. 24mm f/1.4G probably. Honorable mention: 24mm PC-E.
The interesting thing to me is what happens when I need to do multiple types of photography on the same trip. I end up carrying multiple 24mm options. This was already true (I carry the 14-24mm and the 24mm PC-E much of the time). Do I now add a 24mm f/1.4G to the bag, too? This just goes to show how tricky lens selection can sometimes get.
There's no perfect lens for every situation, thus you often have to carry something that is a compromise for some of the things you might photograph. The question is where you compromise.
For me, the compromise I tend to give up is autofocus. That's because I find the 24mm PC-E suitable for much of the wide angle work I want to do. So the question for me is whether I continue to carry the 14-24mm or replace it with either the new 16-35mm. It'll all depend upon the far corners with a D3x and whether my thin filters vignette on the new lens. For others (event and night street photographers, for instance), the 24mm f/1.4G is a clear "put in the bag."
So, good job Nikon: you've given us FX users plenty of 24mm options to consider. There's still DX to consider (they have almost nothing at 24mm equivalent), though, plus a lot of other focal lengths to give us more choice at.