28mm compared to 24mm?

[hammy]

I'm close to making my first wide angle lens (FD) purchase and I'm wondering about how much of a difference there is between a 28mm 2.8 and a 24mm 2.8 (besides the 24mm being a little more pricey).

Obviously the 24mm will have a wider angle of view, but how much more? Does anyone by any chance have comparison shots? Anything else that differs the two?

 

[Gary Holliday]

The 24mm is worth the extra money. It gives photographs that little bit of "edge" if you are doing fashion or sports photography. As for comparison shots, I did see something like that a while a go, but a quick look through my encylopedia of bookmarks did not find anything. You'll find something like that on beginners type sites...Kodak for example.

 

[srs5694]

I don't have any comparison shots handy, but IMHO the difference isn't all that huge. If I happen to have both my 28-70mm zoom and my 24mm prime lens with me, I'll use whichever is more appropriate, but it's fairly rare that I feel the need for the other lens when I've only got one of them with me.

OTOH, I do frequently take my 28-70mm zoom and my 20mm prime with me, and I find myself swapping lenses to get a wider or narrower view with them.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

28mm is probably the widest lens that still looks "normal"--a good choice for, say, environmental portaits in tight spaces. For that use, the FD 28/2.0 is a nice lens--still not too expensive (about the same as the FD 24/2.8), but it gives you a little more control over DOF and an extra stop for low light.

24mm is the beginning of the "wide look"--handy for landscapes, near/far compositions, and such.

 

[naturephoto1]

Hammy,

I don't have and have not had the experience with a 28mm lens. For myself, my wide angle lenses are 21mm, 24mm, 35mm. If you only want one wide angle lens, many suggest the 28mm. If you go for 2 the general recommendation is 24mm and 35mm. As David indicates for that near far look, landscape, indoor architecture, etc. the 24mm is very useful. When using a 24mm and wider lens, unless you want what appears as "bending" lines it is frequently best to mount the camera and these lenses on a tripod. They should be rectilinearly corrected (keeping lines parallel) but they are more difficult to control the wider the the focal length.

Rich

 

[DBP]

At 20 feet, the field of view will be roughly 20x30 as opposed to 17x25 feet, if I remembered the trig right.

 

[bob01721]

Here's another way of saying what's already been said, but from a different frame of reference: I don't find much difference at all between a 35mm and a 28mm. But I see a noticeable difference between a 35mm and a 24mm.

 

[firecracker]

28mm is probably the widest lens that still looks "normal"--a good choice for, say, environmental portaits in tight spaces.

I use a New FD 28mm F2.8 lens, which has (almost) no curve/distortion. Amazing. My normal range is between 28mm and 135mm.

However if I was using some old Nikkor lenses, 28mm wouldn't look nearly as normal.

 

[waynecrider]

While I wouldn't personally own the Nikon 28mm F2.8 I do like the FD 28mm F2.8 alot, so my answer depends on the brand and which lens. Overall, and having shot 24mm Nikon quite a bit, I find the FD 28mm has plenty of coverage for me and I like the perspective better. I also appreciate the smidgen of magnification at the same shooting distance. Whenever I use a wide angle I generally like to be as close as possible to concentrate on the subject, something that may or may not be possible. I don't feel that it's necessary for me to included everything I see with a wide angle lens in a photo. It distracts the eye too much. I use the lens that will highlight the subject and one that will have less distortion. If it's a wide landscape I use a mf or Lf camera for sheer film real estate and for tonal seperation. Nowdays my go to lens is a 35mm which lives on the camera. Anything wider gets used occasionally and because of that my second 24mm was sold.

 

[DBP]

The way I very unscientifically estimate which lens to use for a given shot is that a normal lens approximates the view from one eye, 35mm both eyes with glasses, and 28mm both without glasses. 24mm is the first that really feels wide, of the usual 35mm SLR lengths.

 

[gnashings]

While this is not FD specific, I have to pitch in with many prior to me:
The 28mm has a wide angle of view. The 24mm (for some reason, its only 4mm different!) has that "WHOA! That IS wide, now!" effect when I look through it. I know the 28mm f2.8 in the FD mount is one of the best bangs for the buck in WA glass. I don't know how the 24mm compares. But, I DO know that the 20mm f2.8 (both SSC and NFD) is a real gem! Its on my wishlist for sure! The reason I mention that is that in your shoes I would get the excellent 28mm and for that really wide, while still optically excellent look, the 20mm. Have a look at this site - aside from being one of my favourite photo related sites on the web, there is a whole slew of photos taken with the 20mm. I think you will love it.
Another thing to consider are the Krion WA lenses. Real hidden gems (as well as the Vivitars made by Kiron). This may be a way to go if you want an f2 lens that is by all accounts as good as anything Canon made but can still be had for less than the faster f2 wide angles from Canon.
Best of luck - just don't end up buying them all Or then again, why the hell not!

Peter.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have 18/24/28/35mm lenses.

A major difference between a 28 & 24mm lens is the ability to stand in a street and take a picture of a house from a diagonal point with a 28mm, just. With the 24mm I can easily move around to fit the entire two storey house either diagonally or straight on.

Another great feature of the 24mm, is to show near landscape features prominently, as well as far features and also maintain a pretty sharp focus of all the scene.

When travelling on a motorcycle I'm restricted to two lenses, I take the 105mm and the 24mm.

Years ago I travelled a lot with a 28/35/105. Once the 24mm lens became available cheaply for 35mm photography, I bought one.

I think the original reason for the 24mm lens as we know it today, was something to do with coverage in the motion picture industry and colour pictures, with three filters required. The 24mm lens made this possible.

Perhaps others may have a history on this. All I can remember was that the patent ran out and all of a sudden Japanese manufacturers all had 24mm lens on their list of very desirable products.

The 24mm lens really makes a huge difference and I would suggest that you see if you can borrow one for a brief trial, or at least a look through a 100% coverage viewfinder, it really is good.

Mick.

 

[Ryuji]

Another approach is to get a hold of Fujifilm Natura S, which is a p&s with 24mm f/1.9 lens. (Sold only in Japan, though!)

My favorite is 50mm on 6x6 format, but for 35mm, my favorites are 21mm and 35mm primes. HOWEVER, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is soooooo nice for a wide angle enthusiast. (24-105mm f/4L USM IS is also very nice for general purpose that begins at 24mm!)

I generally prefer prime lenses for greater contrast for fine details but 17-40mm zoom just throws much of your concern out of the equation. In wide range, even a single mm makes a significant change in the angle of view. You can also use foot zoom if the lens is short enough, though.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Hammy,

For me, the difference is considerable: far greater than the 4mm suggests. Perhaps the best way of phrasing it is that visually, it seems to me that a 28 is a wider-than-usual 35mm, while a 24mm is a slightly narrow 21mm.

It's very personal, though. My wife likes 28mm -- it's her main wide-angle -- but I seldom use it; mostly 21mm and 35mm.

It's also a question of outfit: she prefers 21-28-50-90 and I use 21-35-75. But she is idly considering switching to 25-50-90...

When we used reflexes, it tended to be 24-35PC-50-90-135-200.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Steve Smith]

The widest I have for 35mm is 28mm. Sometimes I borrow a 24mm from my father. He has difficulty getting it back from me!

I love the look of things with a 24mm. Even just viewing through the camera makes things appear different. 28mm appears too normal after using 24mm.

Steve.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Yes I agree that the 24mm has that real wide angle feel which may seem odd as it's only 4mm wider than the 28.
I have an FD 28mm F2 and 24mm F2.8. I consider the 28mm as a good all purpose lens, one you take by itself, whereas I use the 24mm when doing serious wide angle stuff.
You can diguise the wide angle effect with the 28mm but not so easily with the 24. I have an 18mm nikkor for my F2 but find that I hardly ever use it.

 

[Woolliscroft]

There is about a 10 degree difference in the angle of coverage between a 24mm and a 28mm. I use both (along with 15, 21 and 35mm wide angles), but I probably use the 24mm more. It also has noticeably more depth of field than a 28mm which you may or may not regard as a good thing, depending on what you are intending to do.

David.

 

[Uncle Bill]

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

 

[Gerald Koch]

If you plan on owning only one wide angle lens then the 28mm is the best choice. There is a noticeable difference between a 24mm and a 28mm lens.

 

[kraker]

Well, I'll throw in my EUR 0.02 too. When confronted with the same choice years ago, I opted for the 24 mm (Canon EOS, by the way). I don't own a 28 mm, so I can't really compare, but it's truly amazing what you can do with 24 mm.

I believe at 28 mm things still look "normal", whereas with the 24 mm everything near the edge of the frame is distorted. Distorted in a nice way, things are "pulled" towards the border of the frame. 24 mm gives an amazing wide view of the world.

Having said that, maybe I should look for a 28 mm so that I can do an honest comparison...

 

[benjiboy]

Wide angles

Look at a book called Lenswork on Christian Rollingers site www.canonfd.com. there's masses of canon Fd information
I have the 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, and 35mm f2.8 FD lenses, and would say for me personally, I use the 28 the most followed by the 35 then the 24, but that's just me, it realy depends on the individual and what your photographic interests are, but if you only ever intend to buy one, I would recomend the 28mm

 

[JBrunner]

One thing to point out is that because of the math 24mm vs 28mm is allot bigger FOV difference that say 100mm vs 105mm.

 

[dolande]

I think it boils down to personal preference and you won’t know until you try it. I own/owned 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 17-35 zoom. I sold the 20mm because I didn’t know how to use it and starting experimenting with the 24, 28 and 35. I found myself using the 28 most of the time. Like a previous poster said the 28 gets you whatever you can see in front of you the 24 gives you a little more, but that litter more wasn’t doing any good to my photographs so I keep the 28. Recently I came back to ultra-wide lenses with the 17-35 zoom and found that most on the time I use it in the 17mm settings.

Hope this helps.

Rafael

 

[JBrunner]

I think it boils down to personal preference and you won’t know until you try it. I own/owned 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 17-35 zoom. I sold the 20mm because I didn’t know how to use it and starting experimenting with the 24, 28 and 35. I found myself using the 28 most of the time. Like a previous poster said the 28 gets you whatever you can see in front of you the 24 gives you a little more, but that litter more wasn’t doing any good to my photographs so I keep the 28. Recently I came back to ultra-wide lenses with the 17-35 zoom and found that most on the time I use it in the 17mm settings.

Hope this helps.

Rafael

I have similar preferences with my 15-30, it seems that most of the time, once I go past the threshold where thing get seriously wide, I seem to favor as wide as I can get.

 

[srs5694]

I have similar preferences with my 15-30, it seems that most of the time, once I go past the threshold where thing get seriously wide, I seem to favor as wide as I can get.

That mirrors my own experience, and is probably why I prefer my 20mm to my 24mm. Once I feel the need for ultrawide, the 20mm format just does what I want better than the 24mm. Then there's my 16mm semi-fisheye, but that's just another kettle of fish entirely (pun intended ).