Nikon 20mm or 24mm prime

[paulm2930]

which wide angle do you prefer from a focal length point of view and why? I've no experience with either on full frame and am eying up one of these as a future purchase and I'm interested on your thoughts as to which you most use or prefer using and why? Will I notice much difference in my shots between these?
Paul

 

[simon ess]

I use 24mm a lot but sometimes wish I had something a little wider.

Then again, I wouldn't want anything wider for the majority of shots.

So on balance, for me, if I could only have one, it would be the 24mm.

 

[Nod]

At the wide end, the 4mm difference is quite noticeable. Purely a matter of personal taste as to which is preferred. Of course, a 20mm image can be cropped to give the same A0V as a 24mm while it's somewhat harder to widen a 24mm image to replicate a 20mm one!

IF budget allows, the Nikkor 14-24 could be an option, as could a good copy (they do exist, despite the naysayers!) of the Sigma 12-24.

 

[macvisual]

I personally feel the 24mm isn't wide enough (for me), I've recently bought a 20mm/1.8G and so far so good, loving it. Here's a link regards the 20mm f1.8G with some comments and lots of images taken with it;

20mm f1.8G
http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=nikon_afs20_f1-8

24mm f1.8G
http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=nikon_afs24_f1-8g


I feel a 20mm/21mm is an excellent focal length for full-frame as it's wide alright without be excessive!

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Personally I don't have a preference, I use the right focal length to get the job done but there is no right or wrong focal length, just the photographers interpretation or aspiration. What do I want to achieve ? The 24mm (talking full frame) is ideal for indoors and will cover most average sized rooms (define an average room!) whilst the 20mm which is almost universally considered to be the start of the ultra-wide angles is a lot more dramatic. You'll certainly notice a difference if you compare the two focal lengths) I have used this to good effect to photograph the front of sports cars to add impact and it's good for tight spaces,it's my considered opinion it's not as versatile as a 24mm which gives very little distortion on the perspective and subjects appear very natural but ultimately you need to ask yourself what image (s)you want to achieve and that should ultimately reflect your choice. Force me into a corner and I would say the 24mm gets more use. Hope that helps.

 

[cambsno]

Or a 16-35 f4... what other lenses do you have. I am probably going to get a 20mm and sell my 16-35 as have a 24-70 so that duplicates much of the focal length.

 

[paulm2930]

Or a 16-35 f4... what other lenses do you have. I am probably going to get a 20mm and sell my 16-35 as have a 24-70 so that duplicates much of the focal length.

I have only just switched to full frame so I have a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8. I love the dynamic look of wide angle lenses, I have tried the 35 f2 which wasn't wide enough for me. So that's what's making me think that the 24 may not be different enough to the 35 I tested.

 

[paulm2930]

At the wide end, the 4mm difference is quite noticeable. Purely a matter of personal taste as to which is preferred. Of course, a 20mm image can be cropped to give the same A0V as a 24mm while it's somewhat harder to widen a 24mm image to replicate a 20mm one!

IF budget allows, the Nikkor 14-24 could be an option, as could a good copy (they do exist, despite the naysayers!) of the Sigma 12-24.

Great point about cropping, gives you more options. Thanks

 

[simon ess]

Just a thought.

I don't know which version you were thinking of but I think I'm right in saying if you go for the D, rather than the G, you could get both.

I say that on the basis that I paid £120 for my 24mm f2.8 d.

Might be worth looking into anyway.

 

[macvisual]

Have you looked at the subtleness of the Nikkor 28mm wide angle ? A beautiful focal length and very often forgot about.

Link to Nikkor 28mm f1.8G;
http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=nikon_28_f1-8g


Regards;
Peter

 

[Nguss]

I pretty much use a 25mm lens these days and often still end up cropping that. 20mm is, for me, very very wide and I personally find it difficult to use, but there are plenty of people on this forum who get stellar results with the 20mm. Is there no way you could even rent a 16-35 and try both focal lengths?

 

[paulm2930]

I pretty much use a 25mm lens these days and often still end up cropping that. 20mm is, for me, very very wide and I personally find it difficult to use, but there are plenty of people on this forum who get stellar results with the 20mm. Is there no way you could even rent a 16-35 and try both focal lengths?

Yeah that's probably the best thing to do. Might do that.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I have only just switched to full frame so I have a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8. I love the dynamic look of wide angle lenses, I have tried the 35 f2 which wasn't wide enough for me. So that's what's making me think that the 24 may not be different enough to the 35 I tested.

28mm, 24mm and 20mm are all quite different to use, and 28mm is quite a lot wider than 35 (which isn't wide enough a lot of the time, as you found, because it's almost a second 'standard' lens). 28mm and 24 mm are both very useful focal lengths, but I'd suggest that 20mm is a bit more specialist, and once you got over the novelty it would be used less than 24mm.

I've just (as in earlier this week) picked up an older Sigma 21-35, and I'm very happy with it so far from a single photo-expedition in Oxford city. It's surprising how much the excitement of having the 21mm focal length available over-rides good sense, and how often photos taken super-wide would have benefited from a slightly longer focal length. These lenses aren't expensive relative to what you're looking at, and it might be worth picking one up (or the slightly similar Cosina/vivitar/Tokina/Quantarray 19-35) to see which focal lengths work for you before investing more in a prime. Worth remembering too that super-wide lenses are more about 'getting inside' a scene than simply getting more into the picture.

Which focal length do I prefer? For a single prime length probably a well designed 28mm, because distortion is minimal and it's still pretty wide without making distant objects too tiny: 24mm is pretty darn good too, but needs you to get in closer to be most effective.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

28mm, 24mm and 20mm are all quite different to use, and 28mm is quite a lot wider than 35 (which isn't wide enough a lot of the time, as you found, because it's almost a second 'standard' lens). 28mm and 24 mm are both very useful focal lengths, but I'd suggest that 20mm is a bit more specialist, and once you got over the novelty it would be used less than 24mm.

I've just (as in earlier this week) picked up an older Sigma 21-35, and I'm very happy with it so far from a single photo-expedition in Oxford city. It's surprising how much the excitement of having the 21mm focal length available over-rides good sense, and how often photos taken super-wide would have benefited from a slightly longer focal length. These lenses aren't expensive relative to what you're looking at, and it might be worth picking one up (or the slightly similar Cosina/vivitar/Tokina/Quantarray 19-35) to see which focal lengths work for you before investing more in a prime. Worth remembering too that super-wide lenses are more about 'getting inside' a scene than simply getting more into the picture.

Which focal length do I prefer? For a single prime length probably a well designed 28mm, because distortion is minimal and it's still pretty wide without making distant objects too tiny: 24mm is pretty darn good too, but needs you to get in closer to be most effective.

Going completely off-topic for a split second the 'Old Guys Rule' clothing outlet is doing a very nice t-shirt marked 'Ancient Mariner' complete with a fouled anchor logo below the text as part off their new range. Back on topic I totally agree with your comments !

 

[ancient_mariner]

Going completely off-topic for a split second the 'Old Guys Rule' clothing outlet is doing a very nice t-shirt marked 'Ancient Mariner' complete with a fouled anchor logo below the text as part off their new range. Back on topic I totally agree with your comments !

Thanks for the heads up Nick.

A quick demo of 35mm, 24mm and 21mm

35mm

24mm

21mm

There's not a HUGE amount in it and this position flatters the widest angle, but with the lens at 21mm people coming through the door by the end wall were disproportionately small in the frame to look good, while at 35mm the chap walking past looks OK.

 

[Nawty]

which wide angle do you prefer from a focal length point of view and why? I've no experience with either on full frame and am eying up one of these as a future purchase and I'm interested on your thoughts as to which you most use or prefer using and why? Will I notice much difference in my shots between these?
Paul

4mm at such wide angle is quite significant as I think the shots above show (what's 'in there' doesn't look too much different but the perspective has changed a lot)..

What other lenses do you have? The reason I would buy the 20mm f/1.8 if I had Nikon FF would be to photograph the northern lights, otherwise I would use a slower zoom.

 

[frod]

For me, a wide angle is a good option to have but I only use it 5% off the time so I spent as equivalent amount as I reasonably could. You don't really need AF at those angles for example. Something to think about anyway.