M
mervyn
Guest
I fancy one of these two lenses - any comments on which is the more desireable. I know there is quite a difference in price:bang::bonk:
- Messages
- 4,184
- Name
- Barbara
- Edit My Images
- No
I've got the 24mm and it's a great lens for landscapes. I bought it in preference to the 20mm because it was cheaper. I've also got a Sigma 10-20 but at this wide angle you need to really make sure you have foreground interest else the photo can look really boring. It's much easier with the 24mm imo to get a good landscape.
Probably my advice would be if you can afford it and don't want to get an extra wide 10-20 later then go for the 20mm, but if you want to go extra wide angle later then go for the 24mm.
- Messages
- 16,294
- Name
- Andy Grant
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry to hijack the thread but this is the sort of thing I'm looking for, a good landscape lens. I've got the 18-55mm Nikon kit lens but I assume that there would be a noticable difference in clarity with either of the above lenses or the sigma 10-20mm.
Andy
Andy
davekiddle
Like to feel muppets
- Messages
- 6,169
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wouldn't be so sure. The 18-55mm Nikon is a good lens - don't be fooled by the fact it's a kit lens. Mine is really sharp.
- Messages
- 2,032
- Name
- Barney
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Are you shooting FX or DX? If FX, let's be honest, how much difference would 4mm make to your photography? If you need to shoot in confined areas then go for the 20mm, but if you're shooting landscapes in the great outdoors the 24mm should be fine. If you;re shooting DX then the crop factor cahnegs these lenses to 30mm and 38mm which is more of a difference, neither is that wide so I'd pay the extra for the 20mm. Incidentally, I had the 20mm, it's a lovely compact lens.