24mm vs 28mm on Full Frame

JJ!

JJ!

Messages
5,813
Edit My Images
No
Paired with a 50mm, what would be your choice and why?

The 24mm 1.8g costs about £180 more than the 28mm 1.8g.

I know the 28mm suffers from focal shift but never really noticed it when I had it.

Primary use will be landcapes, maybe group shots of people, street.

Not interested in 35mm, it’s between these focal lengths!

Be interested to hear views from people who have tried both, reasons why?
 
Tough call. For landscapes 24mm would be my choice, for street then 28mm. That being said I also like 50mm for street and you already have that so maybe 24mm for landscapes and 50mm for street? Depending on the size of the group in group shots plus the room available then either 24mm or 50mm could be suitable.
 
snerkler said:
Tough call. For landscapes 24mm would be my choice, for street then 28mm. That being said I also like 50mm for street and you already have that so maybe 24mm for landscapes and 50mm for street? Depending on the size of the group in group shots plus the room available then either 24mm or 50mm could be suitable.
Click to expand...

Yeah your are right about the 50mm, it does make good for street as can keep a bit more distance too!
 
snerkler said:
Tough call. For landscapes 24mm would be my choice, for street then 28mm. That being said I also like 50mm for street and you already have that so maybe 24mm for landscapes and 50mm for street? Depending on the size of the group in group shots plus the room available then either 24mm or 50mm could be suitable.
Click to expand...

I would second this opinion. I haven’t had primes at either length but have had lenses covering both. I have to say, especially with landscapes I used 24mm a lot more but I guess I that is personal. 50mm is also decent for street and cheap as well.
 
24mm would give a bit more diffference to the 50mm you have but 28mm may be a bit more versatile.

I do have a bit of a problem with the view often expressed that lanscape = wide angle and of course you do have to be careful when taking wider angle group shots as those on the periphery may complain :D

Given the choice and if there are other lenses available to me I'd go for 24mm. If there were no other lenses available I'd go for 28mm. I've never really been a big fan of 28mm lenses other than because they're often cheaper than 24mm lenses and maybe a bit more of a one lens multi use answer but if a multi use one lens does it all answer isn't needed then I'd pick the 24mm. If that makes sense.
 
I know focal lengths are a very personal thing, same as the max aperture of a lens, it all comes down to your needs and also your style of photography.

However, there has to be something where some are more standardise and popular and classic than others. 24/35/50 are the classic and most loved wide aperture primes, notwithstanding there are 28mm, 40mm, 55mm lenses. The sharpest lens ever made is a Otus 55mm, not 50mm. You wonder why others don't make a 55mm Art or a 55mmL.

The Sony 28/2.0 is no doubt a good lens for its purpose and relatively cheap, however when you shot your entire life on a 35mm, putting a 28mm will throw me off a bit, if I am then frame the photo like I do with a 35 I will get all kind of weird distortion, ever mm difference needs a little learning and adapting and consideration. You can't get a 28mm thinking it'll look like a 35 or a 24.
 
woof woof said:
24mm would give a bit more diffference to the 50mm you have but 28mm may be a bit more versatile.

I do have a bit of a problem with the view often expressed that lanscape = wide angle and of course you do have to be careful when taking wider angle group shots as those on the periphery may complain :D

Given the choice and if there are other lenses available to me I'd go for 24mm. If there were no other lenses available I'd go for 28mm. I've never really been a big fan of 28mm lenses other than because they're often cheaper than 24mm lenses and maybe a bit more of a one lens multi use answer but if a multi use one lens does it all answer isn't needed then I'd pick the 24mm. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Think 24mm is the best bet. 28mm is more versatile but maybe just a bit boring? I think the 24mm could be more fun!
 
JJ! said:
Think 24mm is the best bet. 28mm is more versatile but maybe just a bit boring? I think the 24mm could be more fun!
Click to expand...
Wide angle lenses can be amongst the most challenging to use well but if you want a challenge and some fun you could look at something even wider, maybe something in the 17 to 20mm sort of range.
 
24mm for me every time, with the option of cropping if needs be, and can also help to create more dynamic perspective effects (architecture?). For groups though, remember to keep people well away from the sides or they'll get pulled out of shape.

If it helps, the traditional gap between focal lengths is roughly 1.4x. So 17, 24, 35, 50, 70, 100, 135, 200.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
HoppyUK said:
If it helps, the traditional gap between focal lengths is roughly 1.4x. So 17, 24, 35, 50, 70, 100, 135, 200.
Click to expand...

But that does bypass some favourites such as 28 and 85mm which are so popular and readily available that maybe they should at least be considered.
 
For me a 24-50-85 combo is perfect.

I’d take the 24 though because it’s a much better lens than the 28.
 
woof woof said:
But that does bypass some favourites such as 28 and 85mm which are so popular and readily available that maybe they should at least be considered.
Click to expand...
Well there other common 1-stop series such as 21, 28, 40, 55, 75, 105, 150 which includes those. 40 & 55/58 have had strong minority advocates.
 
sphexx said:
Well there other common 1-stop series such as 21, 28, 40, 55, 75, 105, 150 which includes those. 40 & 55/58 have had strong minority advocates.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever owned a 70mm lens, 21 and 25 are others I've never owned but I have had 20 and 24. My own little classic list would therefore be 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135 which might be overkill but there you go and I also have 17 and 19mm lenses :D

Wider than 24mm can get rare and expensive or likely both and 135mm is a bit long for me for general use but for other non general stuff a 150mm macro would be very nice and more useful to me than a 135mm. I also own 40, 45 and 55mm lenses. Choice is good but some of us go too far :D
 
woof woof said:
I don't think I've ever owned a 70mm lens, 21 and 25 are others I've never owned but I have had 20 and 24. My own little classic list would therefore be 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135 which might be overkill but there you go and I also have 17 and 19mm lenses :D

Wider than 24mm can get rare and expensive or likely both and 135mm is a bit long for me for general use but for other non general stuff a 150mm macro would be very nice and more useful to me than a 135mm. I also own 40, 45 and 55mm lenses. Choice is good but some of us go too far :D
Click to expand...
Yes, though 70mm is/was very common start of zoom range as in 70-210 etc though I think 70ish is uncommon and replaced by 85, there are probably marketing constraints operating, the others are pretty common.
 
snerkler said:
Tough call. For landscapes 24mm would be my choice, for street then 28mm.
Click to expand...

Similar here except I use 28mm because 28/50/100 has always been my preferred set. Possibly because it's all I had when I started and that's trained me to see pictures at those focal lengths. I can't get on at all with everyone's favourite 35mm and 85mm.

I find 24mm can look 'ultrawide' whereas 28mm usually looks 'normal' unless you force things. My 'standard' single focal length is 28mm these days. If I feel I need wider I use 20mm. But it's all down to how you see pictures in your head I think.
 
JJ! said:
Paired with a 50mm, what would be your choice and why?

The 24mm 1.8g costs about £180 more than the 28mm 1.8g.

I know the 28mm suffers from focal shift but never really noticed it when I had it.

Primary use will be landcapes, maybe group shots of people, street.

Not interested in 35mm, it’s between these focal lengths!

Be interested to hear views from people who have tried both, reasons why?
Click to expand...

Have you already ditched or are you intending to get rid of the 35mm in your profile? If not, the 24mm is the obvious choice, different enough to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, I agree with those who find the 28mm more versatile, and the 28/1.8 G is the lens I actually have on Nikon (and have nothing bad to say about). I also think it's more useful for two of your uses - even with the 28, you have to be a bit careful with people at the edges of group shots, and on the street a 24mm will often be too wide unless you're shooting in a confined space or are going for drama (e.g. close up to the crowd at a demonstration, though in that situation you'll generally be better served by a wide zoom). When I had both primes on another system, it was the 28 I took out most often, though the 24mm certainly had its uses.
 
28mm. If it were just landscapes then I'd say 24mm, but wanting to include people, there's a little too much distortion at 24mm *most of the time*.

My 'perfect' lanscape lens would be the 16-35mm zoom.
 
24 for landscape but it is not that good for street or people IMO.
28 is more usable for street and people but I rather wider for landscape.
Myself I would not get either, 20 for landscape and 35 and 50 for street / people / general. Skipping 24 and 28 completely.
I see 24 and 28 as good for mid range scenes if that makes any sense.
But I would say get 28 because of the street element you are interested in.
 
Thanks for all the posts, gives me a lot to think about!

I just cant get on with 35mm - I will be selling my 35 1.4g at some point to fund what ever other prime I choose!
 
24mm for me. You can crop in to a 24mm image to get a 28mm AoV but it's harder to widen a 28mm to 24.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top