28mm compared to 24mm?

[gnashings]

On the other hand (and this is no help at all), given Canon FD prices, you should just get them all. Mind you, when I was a young man I was really obsessed with huge, fast teles (not that I could own one), now I find I am really intrigued with wide angles. And I think GAS aside, I will probably have a 20, 24, 28 and 35. No, I don't think its logical or necessary... but they all have their little niche...
I actually never thought of it that way, but once I read Mr Brunner's post I had a bit of an eye opener - those little increments are much bigger on the short end than on the tele end of things. I think its fair to say that a 85mm or 100mm will do just as well - heck, you take a step back or forward as needed, but then there is this wide angle thing... you take a look through a 24mm and I guarantee you that you will either compose a different picture or just not like what you see for that shot (vs a 28mm, lets say).
OK, well, that's me, not helping any

Peter.

 

[mikebarger]

As above, everyone see's a little different.

I like my 18mm and 24mm. I rarely use the 35mm, gave away the 28mm, never use the 50mm, then jump to the 105mm. I must not see well in the 28mm to 90mm range

Anyway, good luck in your quest.

Mike

 

[PhotoJim]

I prefer 24, but it took me awhile to get to that point. I started with a 28 and it was many years before I had anything wider.

I recommend that you get a 28. Use it. Learn it. Get used to it. You will know before too long if 24 is of interest. If you buy your 28 wisely you can get what you paid for it if you sell it. Realistically, you will probably want to keep it anyway.

If I were to only have one wide lens today it would be a 24, but I was very happy with a 28 for a long time so I think it is the best place to start. Many people never want wider.

 

[hvdv]

I've used a 28mm as a standard lens for many years, extremely versatile. Since they can be had relatively cheaply, I'd say get one. If you then find you'd love a still wider lens look around for a 21mm.
Another thing to consider is whether you can find a wide zoom. To my surprize I recently won a 17-35/2.8 sonnar on ebay. On paper quite an ideal range, though I'm not yet sure whether the combination of wide and zoom makes sense.

Good luck! Hans

 

[narsuitus]

It really depends on your subject matter, your shooting style, and your other lenses.

Like Mick Fagan, in an earlier post, I also have 18/24/28/35mm lenses.

For me, I like to carry the 28mm with an 18mm and a 50mm as part of an 18/28/50/105 kit.

I like to carry the 24mm with an 18mm and a 35mm as part of an 18/24/35/85/180 kit.

Rarely do I carry the 28mm and the 24mm at the same time.

 

[Simon E]

It really depends on your subject matter, your shooting style, and your other lenses.

I would say the same. I started with 35mm and 50mm, so 24mm was the logical step outwards. Others have said they find 35mm too close to 50mm and want something wider as their 'first' wideangle so choose 28mm. No-one can tell you which to buy, I think you need to try both if you can, see which feels right.

Horizontal angles of view for each (more meaningful IMHO than the diagonals usually quoted) are below:

24mm - 73°
28mm - 65°
35mm - 54°
50mm - 39°

Simon.

 

[DBP]

I would say the same. I started with 35mm and 50mm, so 24mm was the logical step outwards. Others have said they find 35mm too close to 50mm and want something wider as their 'first' wideangle so choose 28mm. No-one can tell you which to buy, I think you need to try both if you can, see which feels right.

Horizontal angles of view for each (more meaningful IMHO than the diagonals usually quoted) are below:

24mm - 73°
28mm - 65°
35mm - 54°
50mm - 39°

Simon.

Where did you get those horizontal angles of view? Incidentally, Nikon and Pentax publish different fields of view for the same focal length. Anyone have any insight into that?

 

[MattKing]

For many years, my kit was 28mm, 50mm, 135mm.

I think 28mm is good as an all purpose wide angle if you are limited to just one.

Now, my main kit is 24mm, 35mm, 85mm. I find the 24mm + 35mm tandem much more useful. I think I would find that a 24mm + 50 mm tandem would leave a "gap".

I no longer even own a 28mm or a 135mm.

I still have a 50mm, and a 75-150 zoom, but they don't get used that much.

All of the above are Olympus Zuiko lenses, so they are quite small. The 28mm f/3.5 that I used to own was tiny. That criteria might factor into your decision.

It depends most, IMHO, on how you see things. You may find, however, that experience with a new focal length may change just that.

Matt

 

[naturephoto1]

I use a similar kit to Matt.

In the Leica R system, I often carry the 24mm, 35mm, 90mm. I also have a 21mm lens which I like very much, but I carry less than the 24mm. This is in part due to a different filter size, but it is a little more difficult to control than the 24mm. I will also frequently carry a 60mm macro and will often substitute a 70-210 zoom for more flexibility than the 90mm (I may also use a 180mm lens if I carry the 90mm and do not carry the zoom).

Rich

 

[ampguy]

I have a Sigma 18mm 3.4 WA that has very little distortion, depending on the angle, distance, and subject. I really like 18mm, can't imagine being without it.

 

[Shawn Mielke]

"I find the 24mm + 35mm tandem much more useful."

Perhaps this is a common view? I wonder this because Canon's fast wa
L primes are a 24mm 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4.

As for me, I think my first kit is going to be 20-50-105 (Nikon), with the 50mm focal length as the basis, 105mm being roughly half the angle of view of 50, and 20 being roughly twice that of 50. At some point I should like to add a 200 to this.

 

[hammy]

Um...to use the Spinal Tap reference, 24mm wideangle lenses are the equivelant of 11 (out of 10) on the marshal amp compared to 28mm. I have a 24mm Super Takumar 24 for my Spotmatics and other screwmount Pentaxes, it can be an addictive lens to play with.

Bill

Haha! "It's louder...." I love that film.

Thanks for all the replies! It seems everyone agrees that 28mm is a "normal" appearing wide angle, while 24mm gets into that "wow, wide angle" look.
I think after reading all these replies I am going with the 24mm. I really am looking for that exaggerated look and large DOF. I don't mind a little distortion, either. In fact I prefer it. I really like "raw" looking photos. Currently I have a 50mm 1.8, which is a fantastic lens, but I'm longing for wider. I have a 2x teleconverter which makes it a 100mm 2.8, I think? I also have a couple of 200mm zoom lenses but I rarely use those, I'm not the biggest fan or the best at telephoto.

Thanks again.

 

[goros]

Hi all,

When I started using Nikon gear, I only had 28, 50 and 105 mm lenses and was very happy thinking that I had almost any situation covered. I started buying more lenses (whether needing them or not was another story) and carrying more weight until I decided that enough was enough and tried to constrain myself to the minimum number of lenses. It ended being the 28-50-105 set I had in the beginning, but updated with newer and faster lenses.

Recently, I realised that I was using the 50 about 95% of the time, but mainly because the 28 was too wide and the 105 too narrow. Now, like Matt, I've switched to 35-85 both f:1.4 and having the 24/2 as the wide lens.

For a comparison of how the same scene looks when shot with a 20, a 24 or a 28, have a look to:

Dead Link Removed

Cheers

 

[gnashings]

I too am one of the biggest fans of the venerable 50mm you are likely to meet. I love it on all my cameras, especially my old 1.4 SSC (for some reason the nFD1.4 just feels different... yes, I know - I am neurotic). If I had to have one lens, this would be it. It gets the bulk of the work, I know it, I am comfy with it (the two add up to decent results in any field) and its the most lens anyone can buy on a per dollar basis.

But.

Like the man said: sometimes you just need/want the wide angle and there is no getting around it. In my case, in the FD mount, that "Wow, now, this is wide!" lens would be a 20mm f2.8. But a 24mm will get you most of that for a lot less cash, for sure. The 20 is one of the more pricy FD lenses (comperatively).

Peter.

 

[ampguy]

Try 18mm

Bill,

I use an old 18mm Sigma in m42 and its like going to 12. It's incredible, rectilinear, and less barrel distortion than many 24s I've seen. Mine is slow though f3.4, but can be used handheld easily. I can't imagine not having this size, so many places, you just cannot go back farther.

Actually my amps do go to 12... (well some of them)...

Um...to use the Spinal Tap reference, 24mm wideangle lenses are the equivelant of 11 (out of 10) on the marshal amp compared to 28mm. I have a 24mm Super Takumar 24 for my Spotmatics and other screwmount Pentaxes, it can be an addictive lens to play with.

Bill

 

[Simon E]

Where did you get those horizontal angles of view?

A handy bit of free software called f/Calc at http://www.tangentsoft.net/fcalc/

I used it to create a list comparing angles of view of popular 35mm and MF lenses (http://www.geocities.com/ruralwales/aov.html).

Simon.

 

[DBP]

A handy bit of free software called f/Calc at http://www.tangentsoft.net/fcalc/

I used it to create a list comparing angles of view of popular 35mm and MF lenses (http://www.geocities.com/ruralwales/aov.html).

Simon.

That's really handy, thanks. I was trying to resurrect my high school trig, but not having touched it in the 20 years since I last tutored it was a bit of a struggle.

 

[sanderx1]

Where did you get those horizontal angles of view? Incidentally, Nikon and Pentax publish different fields of view for the same focal length. Anyone have any insight into that?

The lens as designed has a focal length that differes from lens as marketed as these get rounded to well known focal lengths for consumer convinience. Would you really want to see 23.9 and 24.1 mm focal length lenses on market?

 

[DBP]

Thanks.