24 or 28 mm prime?

P

Pfreddee

Well-known
Local time
3:16 PM
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
528
I'm looking for recommendations for a prime lens for my Nikon F100. I've got the 50 f/1.8, and I'd like to eventually end up with a classic outfit (24-28mm, 50mm, 85-105mm). However, I'm wondering about which focal length would work best for me. I've used the 28 mm focal length enough to know that I'm comfortable with it. I was wondering what your collective experience with the 24mm length is? One of the problems I could foresee for myself, using the 24mm, is that if I'm not careful with my composition, I could wind up with a frame filled with not much of anything. Would the 24 mm be a real challenge after the 28, do you recommend that I stick with the 28, or maybe go to a 20 mm? What is the group's collective experience?

Thank you to all who reply.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
I recommend the 24/2.8 nikkor... Superb optic, fast, low distortion, accurate af and close focus capabilities (floating element).

you can always crop 24 fov to 28, but no vice versa
 
Depends on your shooting style. I prefer a 24 to add a touch of drama and surrealism. For whatever reason I like a 24/50/90-105 combo as it suits my needs best

If you're shooting MF lenses, the 28/2.8 AiS is really highly regarded, as is the 24/2.8 AiS. I'd start the 28 and see how you fare.
 
I've just bought the 24 ais version recently. I love shooting with it, but have yet to see the results. I kind if got the 24mm "eye" shooting with my d-lux 4. It has to be my favorite FOV, close together with 18mm.
 
I like both 24 and 28, but if I had to pick one, I would go with 24. However, I would then slip in a 35 between 24 and 50, since it's a long jump from 24 to 50 with nothing in between.
 
Rob-F said:
I like both 24 and 28, but if I had to pick one, I would go with 24. However, I would then slip in a 35 between 24 and 50, since it's a long jump from 24 to 50 with nothing in between.
Click to expand...


This was my thoughts also.
 
I can't make a good exposure with a 24 to save my life. 28? No problem. 21? No problem. Go figure. YMMV

OK, maybe I was too hard on myself, maybe I need to work with it some more.



2421777509_eeacda4496_o.jpg

​
 
Last edited:
The 24mm is a "standard landscape/cityscape" lens. The 28mm functions as an alternative to the 35mm lens and as an alternative to the 24mm. The 28mm was developed after the 24mm. Much depends on what you will be using the lens to photograph. As I stated, if it is to photograph landscapes and cityscapes "sans" people go for the 24mm. If on the other hand, you want to use the lens with people in crowded situation the 28mm will grap the scene (but be careful of faces being distorted at the corners).
 
I think lens focal length choice is a personal decision that only you can answer. What someone else likes or dislikes will have no bearing on what will or will not work for you.

Ask yourself if your style of photography allows you time to be a constant lens swapper? Or does it dictate that you use what is on the camera before the photo op disappears? The first scenario typically works best with very wide and very tight options. The second works with a tight range (or just one lens) that is never too wide or never too tight.
 
In general, I prefer the Nikkor 28's to the 24's. However, I prefer the 24mm FL.

If you like 28mm, just get the 28/2.8 AIS. Otherwise, maybe the 25/2.8 or 25/2 Zeiss Distagon...?
 
Last edited:
Try renting one of each for a few days and see how the FOV fits with your vision, and whether it is the right complement to the 50mm. If it turns out you really really dig one over the other the cost of rental will be saved - and you'll know you made the right decision.

Good luck with your choice!
Scott
 
I think the 24mm would be a. Ice addition. The only thing I would worry about is distortion. If you can live with it, or the lens has minimal distortion, then I'd say go for it. As for the long end, I prefer to stay below 100mm.
 
I always found that the difference between a 28 and a 24 was a lot bigger than the 4mm difference would indicate. I would try a 24 out of possible before buying. The 28/2.8 ais has been good and so has the 28/2.8 afd. If you go af get the afd as it is a different optical layout than the first two non D af models.

Bob
 
This is too personal to fit all tastes. It also depends on outer constraints, like if it is faster prime like 28/2 or slower zoom like 25-50/4. I like 17mm, 24mm, 28mm, 45-50mm but don't really hang on 35mm. Others feel 35 is indespensable focal length. Being K-mount user I found it's easy and not expensive to try all of them.
 
Nikon Bob said:
I always found that the difference between a 28 and a 24 was a lot bigger than the 4mm difference would indicate.
Click to expand...

I agree. The 24mm FL is much better :p. But of the Nikkors under discussion here, the 28/2.8 AI-S is the very best lens.

As mentioned above, for a wider lens I'd be looking at the ZF's, or (perhaps, if I could stand the size and wanted AF) the new 24/1.4 Nikkor.
 
semilog said:
I agree. The 24mm FL is much better :p. But of the Nikkors under discussion here, the 28/2.8 AI-S is the very best lens.

As mentioned above, for a wider lens I'd be looking at the ZF's, or (perhaps, if I could stand the size and wanted AF) the new 24/1.4 Nikkor.
Click to expand...

I meant that the coverage of a 24mm seems far greater than that of the 28mm, more than the 4mm difference would seem to imply. Two very different lenses. I could easily substitute a 28mm for a 35mm but not a 24mm. That would apply to any brand.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom