24 or 28 mm?

Steve Mack

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
142
Location
Dillwyn, Vir
Format
35mm
I'm looking to add a wide-angle prime lens to my collection. I've used a 28 mm enough to have a feel for the look. But I am wondering what a 24mm would do. ( BTW, my camera is a Nikon F100.) One problem I am curious about is what do you do with all that context?? It appears to me that if I'm not very careful with composition that I will wind up with a lot of nothing much in the frame. In other words, how much of a challenge to one's composition skills will the 24mm engender? Or would a 20 mm be even more challenging? If you are going to recommend a manual focus lens, please bear in mind that I really, really like the Matrix metering and the other two as well. I already have some FSU rangefinders that require the use of a hand-held light meter.

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen
 

Mark Crabtree

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
782
Format
Large Format
I don't know much about the autofocus versions so will stay out of that. As I just mentioned in another post, the 24 2.8 Nikkor (manual focus, any version) is a great lens. It is a shame about the the lack of matrix metering with MF lenses (I have an F80).

I don't find the 24 to be more difficult to compose with than 28; I prefer it myself. For some reason, going down to 20mm (or 21 in other systems) really makes a difference in that regard. For me that is the dividing line between wide angle and super wide.
 

Excalibur2

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
423
Location
UK
Format
35mm
Well a 28mm is definitely cheaper than a 24mm and I use a 24mm with a 35 or 40mm combo more than a 28mm, for indoor use with people
 

mrred

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format
Well, I have not got a 24 or 28 from my Nikon. The smallest is a 50. However my OM has a 24 and a 28. Frankly, after the fact, it is difficult to tell which one I used. Aside from noticing when you first get them, your eyes adapt and move on. Just go with the highest quality lens you have.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,254
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
My favourite combo is 24mm, 35mm and 85mm.

This shot from my APUG gallery was shot using a 24mm f/2.8 Zuiko:
 

Attachments

  • broken_tree_01a.jpg
    198.9 KB · Views: 169

Vilk

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
515
Location
hegeso.com
Format
35mm
having used both--the practical difference between them is never greater than a small step forward or back, sometimes just leaning over a bit is enough. in fact, they were so similar that i eventually got rid of one. looking back at old pictures i have no idea which was taken with which
 

alexfoto

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
89
Location
Greece
Format
Multi Format
If i understand well you have 28mm, so the different in angle 24-28 is very short, buy instead 20mm.
 

Lightproof

Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
81
Format
Medium Format
As you have the F100, you could rent the 24mm/1.4 and give it a try. You can replace the 28mm with it and buy something wider.
It is one of these lenses that makes me want to buy the F6. The difference to 28mm is next to non-existant.
 

Vincent Brady

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
2,079
Location
Co. Kildare
Format
35mm
I use the 24-85mm 1:2.8-4 D as my standard lens on my F100, and I use the 24 mm lens on my Olympus for all my IR work. So I think the 24mm lens is just perfect for my use which is mainly landscape.
 

polyglot

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,467
Location
South Australia
Format
Medium Format
Mostly agree with the "it's not very different", but sometimes that little bit extra is good. You are right to worry about lots of nothing in the frame and my suggestion is "get in close". The beauty of wides is that they can give you unusual perspectives, not that there's way too much background creeping in. Also suggesting a 20mm...
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
For me there is a categorical difference between 24mm and 28mm. I think of 28mm as the widest lens I'd use where I don't want an exaggeratedly wide look, like for an environmental portrait in a particularly tight space.

24mm starts to have a "wide look," so I'm more likely to use it for big landscape subjects, or photographing tall buildings where I want to keep the camera level and crop out the excess foreground, or for interior architectural shots where I've got a lot to fit into the frame and can't step back far enough.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,243
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format

I was going say the same, I agree 100%.
-
When I had a 24mm back in the late 1970's I found it was often just a bit too wide and switched to a 28mm a decision I've never regretted, I do have a 17mm as well. So I found the 17mm, 28mm, 50mm and 70-210mm (zoom0 combination ideal. Perhaps if the OP had a 35mm WA then the 24mm/35mm.80mm suggestion would also be a good option.

Ian
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
28 and 24 are not very far apart in focal length, but there is a notable difference in "feel."

I use 28 as a wide that doesn't really look all that wide. It is part of my main 3-lens kit, which consists of 28, 50, and 135.

I use 24 when I really want a WIDE look, or when I simply need to cram more into the frame because my rearward movement is limited.

I use the 24 as more of a special-purpose lens. I would not like to have it as my only wide. I have to get too close to subjects to use it, and I find that it can easily create a gimmicky "look! I'm using a wide angle lens" look. A little distracting for most of what I shoot. But using a 28 is as easy and fluid for me as using a 50.
 

rolleiman

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
281
Format
Medium Format
It's a case of sensibly spacing your lenses. If I'm photographing in the city, I find a 20mm, 35mm & 85mm the most useful combo. However, if I'm going on a long walk in the countryside, I'll probably take 28mm, 55mm macro, & 105mm. Personally I would find the 24mm a bit of an "in-between" lens. Whatever wide you go for, you must aim for fairly close in foreground interest, otherwise your pictures are likely to be very flat and one-dimensional.
 

Russ - SVP

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
755
Location
Washington
Format
35mm
I use my 24mm, much more than my 28mm.

 

Rol_Lei Nut

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,108
Location
Hamburg
Format
Multi Format
I will second the "If you already have a 28mm, then get a 20mm" idea...

Compositionally more challenging than a 24mm, but the basic idea is to get close to some sort of foreground.
 

Russ - SVP

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
755
Location
Washington
Format
35mm
Very true. Love my 20mm.
 

Excalibur2

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
423
Location
UK
Format
35mm
Rol_Lei Nut said:
I will second the "If you already have a 28mm, then get a 20mm" idea...

Compositionally more challenging than a 24mm, but the basic idea is to get close to some sort of foreground.
Click to expand...

Having a 28mm doesn't mean that's what you really want as I would think many choose a 28mm because a good 24mm is so damn expensive.
 

bsdunek

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
1,611
Location
Michigan
Format
Multi Format
IMHO, I would go to a 20mm. I love my 20mm when I really want wide. The 28mm is good for moderate wide - groups of people, etc. 35mm doesn't seem enough wider than 50mm, that I don't even own one. But, that's my opinion.
 

Aja B

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
130
Format
35mm
Hey folks, Mr. OP doesn't yet have a 28.

I'm in the camp that feels there is a pronounced difference between 28 and 24. Perspective distortion, I've long believed, becomes much more apparent with 24. I'll add the sweeping statement that as one goes wider, say from 35 to 15, an increasing amount of care (skill!) must be used to create a pleasing image. Hand a 35 to anyone and they've got a good chance of making a decent image. Give them a 20 and they'll be quite challenged. I've witnessed the same in highly unscientific field-testing...as in, 'here, take this (my camera) and go make some photos' while attending social functions. I enjoy W-I-D-E more than the average shooter (owning wide, super, ultra, etc.) yet I find 28 to be oh-so-pleasing for a variety of situations. A final, hands-down word on recommended MF models: Nikon 28/2 or 28/2.8 AIS, both of which are superior to Nikon's AF offering.

I also appreciate Matrix Metering but w/ a non-CPU lens such as the two MF models I noted above, only Center Weight and Spot metering are available on the F100. Both metering methods have their attributes, esp spot -metering...may be a good opportunity to refine your metering technique?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pumalite

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
1,078
Location
Here & Now
Format
Multi Format
Have both. I have them in MF and AF. f/2.8 is better than f/2
 

fmajor

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
259
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I think Goldfarb is onto something with the 24mm being the beginning of truly wide lenses whist 28mm is a really wide 'normal' focal length.

I have a 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and multiple 50mm's and i *rarely* use the 28mm. If i'm going after landscape i'm using my 24mm. If i'm walking/traveling i choose the 35mm or 50mm. The 28mm just sits in 'nowhere land' (i'd sell it, but for the $30-$50 i'd get it's not worth selling). Yes, i 'foot-zoom' and can change whats in the frame by backing up/getting closer, but the 'look' of the 28mm vs the 35mm is just *different* and i prefer the 35mm.

Between the 24mm and the 28mm - there's no comparison. They have a *very* different FOV and all of what that entails in a given frame - it's not as simple as backing up/getting closer.
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format

Perfect case in point of why I prefer 28mm. I'd crop all of those pix a bit if they were my own. They are relatively small subjects within the frame, and there is a vast array of interesting lawn chairs and back yard in the background. But get any closer, and the subjects warp even more than they already are. It is a personal choice, obviously, and I don't mean to say that it is anything but, but rather to explain why I would choose 28.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…