24mm vs 28mm

<p>Which focal length sits better between 14mm and 50mm FX : 24 or 28 ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is a huge difference between 24mm and 50mm, so 28mm in my opinion.</p>

<p>same here</p>

<p>I like the huge difference, myself, and often carry only a 24 and 50. If you do 14/28/50, that puts the 2X jump between the wide angles, and out there it feels like a much bigger difference than 24/50. If you're going to use 14/28/50, you might consider throwing a 20 in the mix for 14/20/28/50. That's a set that hardly anyone could argue with, I think.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd go with a 20. And if necessary bridge the gap with a 28 - so if 4 lenses are OK, then I'd be following Michael's suggestion of 14/20/28/50. </p>

<p>If the choice is indeed only between 24 and 28 - then I'd pick the 24.</p>

 

<p>IMO, the 14 mm is a niche lens. The better question is what goes best with a 50?</p>

<p>For general photography, I think that would be a 28, or even a 35. If you had to go out with just one lens, say for an afternoon, what would it be? For me that would be a 35, even over the 50, and a 28 is in that ball park. I would never go out with just a 20, and a 14 never crossed my mind. I've gone solo with a 24, but mainly for interiors. It's a LOT wider than a 28.</p>

<p>I'd go with 20 or 24, not 28. Fairly easy to crop in from the 20 and 24 and still have a very usable 28mm f.o.v., or even better, just take a step forward. But to me, 28mm is just not wide enough.<br /><br />But, for me... I'd rather have a 17/18 - 35 zoom. There is some amazing stuff available that will make a great image, as good as any prime in most cases.<br /><br />you are a wedding photographer, though, so don't go real expensive on this. I can't see it being a bread-and-butter lens.</p>

<p>All good answers, thanks everyone!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I like the huge difference, myself, and often carry only a 24 and 50. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What are you shooting with these two? Don't you ever miss a 35 ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>personally i like the 24mm focal length as it is more dramatic (and can be cropped to 28mm), but there are tons of photographers who swear by 28mm as a goldilocks lens: "just right." (ming thein is one of them, and he's written a lot about why he likes 28, as on<a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/10/16/review-zeiss-28-14-otus/"> this</a> review of the new 28mm Otus.) i think it comes down to how comfortable you are with shooting wide angle as opposed to moderately-wide. 20mm is a bit more extreme and harder to frame than 24. of course if you have a 14, that's super extreme, but there is a big difference between 14 and 24. on solo-lens excursions, i generally prefer 35mm over 50, but i have noticed that i used the wide end of my 24-70 a lot. </p>

<p>Just went through this as I shot a Wedding first time in 20 years! A little rusty but it was very clear to me that the 24mm was the only way this was going to happen simply because of the environment, the room was tight. The dimensions of the room were long but narrow, the light was coming in through windows off of the beach so I was channeled into a direction. Point being what lens? What environment that forces the issue. I even left the 20mm at home, big mistake! I could have used that.</p>

<p>"What are you shooting with these two? Don't you ever miss a 35 ?"<br>

I don't, but I'm not the one who suggested going without the 35---you were! To me, a 35 is 50 one step back--it's not really a wide angle at all, so I don't need one.</p>

<p>24/35 or 28/50</p>

24-70. Back in the day when I was a wedding photographer I can remember missing quit

few shots changing lenes. Give your coustomer more better shots. If you need more lenses get

the 14-24 and the 70-200 2.8, you should be happy for the rest of your life, even if your 15 years old.

<p>When I shot weddings with film, I used a medium format camera with a normal lens that was similar in angle-of-view to the 50mm on an FX body. I also used a wide angle lens that was similar in angle-of-view to the 28mm on an FX bodyl</p>

<p>The geometric mid-point between 14mm and 50mm is about 26.5mm (14 x 1.9 = 26.5; 26.5 x 1.9 = 50). In other words, the focal length is about double as you go from 14 - 26.5 - 50. This is good spacing for primes, they are not too close that you waste time deciding between similar options, and not too far apart that you have big gaps in your range.</p>

<p>Of course, there are no 26.5mm primes, so you could go either way with 24mm or 28mm. Personally I'd go with 28mm since it is a focal length I like - it has a nice wide feeling without causing too much distortion/stretching of objects at the edges. On the other hand you might feel 24 is a better fit between 14 and 50, or you may simply prefer that angle of view. The best option would be to take your 14 and 50 to a shop and try out both the 28 and 24, and see what works for you.</p>

<p>David Douglas Duncan use to shoot with a 25, 50 and 200. It seemed to work for him. Bill Garret, former photographer and editor at National Geographic Magazine use to say all a photojournalist needs is a 28 and a 50. I've always found anything wider than a 20mm to be too specialized. I mean when you *need* a 14mm there's nothing like it, but to carry it around all the time. Meh. Good luck with your photography.</p>

<p>The OP needs to buy both and then decide which one to sell.<br /> He didn't say what he was going to use it for.</p>

<p>A photojournalist and a wedding photographer are two very different things. The wedding photographer has to make the subject look great while the PJ has to make a striking image that fits the story.</p>

<p>If I was a wedding photographer I'd pick the 28mm but as PJ I'd pick the 24mm.</p>

<p>In real life though I'd pick neither. For weddings on FX I'd pick the 20mm, 35mm and 85mm primes with zooms as backup (24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8). Two camera bodies. As a PJ I'd just go with two f2.8 zooms, one wide like 16-35 and one tele, 70-200. And two bodies of course. As a landscape photographer I'd go with f4 zooms and a tripod. And if I wanted to do it all, I'd get all of the lenses needed and fill my bag according to the job at hand. </p>

<p>Mathematically, a 24mm angle-of-view falls almost exactly midway between that of a 14mm lens and a 50mm lens. The horizontal AOV of a 14mm lens is 104 degrees, and that of a 50mm lens is just under 40 degrees, making a 64 degree difference between them. Add 32 degrees (half of 64) to 40 degrees and you get an HAOV of 72 degrees.<br /> A 24mm lens has an HAOV of approximately 74 degrees and so is close enough to halfway between. A 28mm offers 10 degrees less HAOV.</p>

<p>With the maths out of the way I'd personally go with a 28mm lens. Wide enough without getting up people's noses and creating distortion. If you can't afford the price or weight of a 24-70mm f/2.8 VC zoom, then the neat little Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP zoom delivers great performance at a low price, size and weight.</p>

<p>Actually, who does use a 14mm and 50mm lens (or for that matter a 14-24mm and 50mm) ?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, who does use a 14mm and 50mm lens (or for that matter a 14-24mm and 50mm) ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm close - I use a 15mm and a 40mm - and fill the gap with a 21mm.<br>

I also have a 16-35. I don't own a 50.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Actually, who does use a 14mm and 50mm lens (or for that matter a 14-24mm and 50mm) ?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I own and use 14-24mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2, 28mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/1.4 Nikon lenses. However, I rarely pair the 14mm with the 50mm or the 14-24mm with the 50mm.<br /><br /> </div>

<p>John, apart from the size and weight difference, do you see any advantage IQ-wise in the prime 14mm f/2.8?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"John, apart from the size and weight difference, do you see any advantage IQ-wise in the prime 14mm f/2.8?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo Joe,</p>

<p>During controlled tests, I noticed a significant difference in image quality between the zoom and two of my older Nikon prime lenses (18mm f/3.5 and 24mm f/2). I was surprised to discover that at the same focal length, the zoom had better image quality than my old primes.</p>

<p>I have not performed any controlled tests to compare the image quality of the zoom and the 14mm; however, during routine usage, I have noticed no significant differences in image quality. They both produce high quality images.</p>

<p>The significant difference for me between the zoom and the 14mm is that the 14mm has the aperture ring that my older Nikon F2 film cameras need for proper exposure control. The zoom lacks this important feature.</p>