Is 24mm wide enough on a crop sensor?

<p>Hi all,<br>

I'm looking into a buying my first wide-angle lens and I'm thinking about Nikon's 24mm 2.8D lens, which looks to be a great prime lens. I have a D300s, and I'm wondering if it'll be "wide enough" for everything I'll be wanting to shoot, including landscapes.<br>

As much as I'd like to go full-frame, that won't be for some time. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? <br>

Comments appreciated, thank you! </p>

<p>Probably not wide enough for what you want. I would look at the 20mm at least for landscapes.</p>

<p>It depends on what you shoot, but I think the short answer is no, it's not wide enough. On a crop camera a 24 gives the angle of view of a 35 (36 to be precise). That's wide, but not wide enough for sweeping vistas in landscape or for working close at a packed wedding reception, being crammed in between reporters and TV cameras at a news event, or doing the kind of wide angle-effect shots where an object in the foreground stands out from the background. 24mm is what you need for all of the above, which means 16mm on a DX chip. I use the 12-24 f/4 Tokina on my D200. Would prefer the Nikon 14-24 2.8 for the bigger f-stop and probably wouldn't miss the two extra mm at that end. </p>

<p>I assume you have the kit zoom lens that came with the camera. Set it for 24mm and try shooting (or just looking at) various situations you think you may encounter. Inside group shots, landscapes, street. If it works for you, it works for you. 24mm on an aps sized sensor is about 36mm on a full-frame (36x24) camera. wider than 50mm, but not as wide as 28mm, but I like the 35mm length a lot in 35mm photography.<br>

Another issue would be the aperture. 2.8 is not that big and depth of field would not be really narrow for selective focus, you know, blurring the back ground and/or forground. It seens like at least f/2 works for that with f/1.8, f1.4 or even f/1.2 being better for that. However they can cost a lot. I'm gonna guess your kit zoom lens is about f/3.5 or even f/4 at its 24mm setting so f/2.8 would be a marked improvement especially for lower-light photos. Why not find an old used manual focus prime that really opens up (i.e. smaller f-number). You can get more lens for the money and you may enjoy a lens designed for manual focus.</p>

<p>Are there distortion issues at all with the 20mm? Is there any difference between a 20mm lens and a 24mm lens, aside from the price (more expensive) and added focal length?</p>

<p>Jim,<br>

When I went from film (like full frame) to digital (1.6 crop body) a couple of years ago, I personally found the 24mm not wide enough for my taste.<br>

Since then, I have acquired a 17-50mm which I find suitable. And I do shoot a lot at around the 20mm focal length.<br>

In my experience, a 24 or 28mm is fine on full frame, but with the crop factor something around 18-20mm becomes close to the equivilant.<br>

My .02</p>

<p>If you can live with a 35mm equivalent on a FF camera, maybe. Realistically speaking, odds are no.</p>

<p>These days on FF 28 mm is often considered a bit boring, 24mm is a nice place to start, 20 mm is into ultra wide and 16mm is common but needs a bit of practice to make te best of it.</p>

<p>28mm is equivalent to about 17mm on APS-C<br /> 24mm ...................................15mm<br /> 20mm.....................................12mm<br /> 16...........................................10mm</p>

<p>The lens you are looking at - 24mm on APS-C - is equivalent to about 38mm which is the wide end of standard so hardly qualifies as wide angle at all. I suggest you look at 17mm downwards. For the most part prime lenses of these focal lengths are high quality, difficult to make and tend to be massive and masssively expensive. The best was to get into wide angle with your camera is prnbably going to be a crop-sensor zoom with roughly a 10-22mm range.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses, everyone. Love 'em and love this forum! <br /><br />Cheers, <br />Jim</p>

<p>Hi Jim, just thought I'd offer my opinion. 24mm is wide enough for most everything I do.<br>

For my crop-frame Pentax (1.5x), I have full coverage from 15mm to 200mm. I rarely, if ever, need something wider than 24mm or longer than 120mm. My primary lens is a 24-135 zoom, precisely filling what I like to shoot.<br>

My favourite focal length is 28mm (on a crop body, or 42mm on a full frame). I could probably shoot 80% of the time with a simple 28mm. But the 35mm-equivalent focal length is very commonly prized as a do-everything wide. (See Fuji's just-introduced rangefinderish camera with a fixed 35mm-equivalent lens.)<br>

What can you shoot with a 24mm on crop frame? Landscapes? Definitely. Depends on how you work and what you want in the frame. I find broad vistas very challenging on an ultrawide. Portraits? The 35mm-equivalent seems BORN to shoot great environmental portraits.<br>

A cheap way to see how wide you like to shoot would be to buy the Nikon 24mm 2.8, and a cheap Nikon F75 SLR for 20 or 30 bucks. The 24mm on the full frame F75 will give you a chance to experiment and see how much wider you would like to go....</p>

 

<p>I used a Canon 24-70 with a Canon 20D (1.6 crop factor) for about a year. My number one concern was the lack of wide angle: with that combo you barely got into wide "territory".</p>

<p>I have the manual focus 24mm f/2.8 often on my D300; it's a very nice combination. But for landscape work, I'd be sure to bring a real wide angle. Unfortunately, after the 20mm (not overly wide on a D300 either: 30mm, and not Nikon's highest rated prime according to many), the only affordable options are zooms, which tend to be quite a bit larger.<br>

I would seriously recommend getting the 24mm - it is a very nice prime as the 35mm equivalent. But I think it will leave you wanting for a wider lens too. Check the Tokina wide angles (12-24 f/4 and 11-16 f/2.8) for good performance at decent prices. Nikon's 10-24 is a nice option too. But none of these is prime-small.</p>

<p>Like many here, I still think in terms of 35mm (film) and on a film camera, a 35mm lens will be OK, but not enough to capture the splendout of a scene. When travelling (Himalaya, Australia, New Zealand) with a film camera I found 28mm plenty wide enough for my tastes - mind you at that time (1990s) anything wider was an utter luxury and prohibitively expensive so maybe I was happy with what I could afford. On a crop sensor camera, this would be equivalent to 17mm.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I use my 70-300 zoom for landscapes as often as I do the wide angle so landscapes do not always need to be magnificent vistas.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm wondering if it'll (24mm) be "wide enough" <strong>for everything I'll be wanting to shoot,</strong> including landscapes."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>24mm is my favourite FL Prime on my APC-S cameras. I “walk around” with it. <br>

To answer specifically <strong>for landscapes</strong> I would want wider, like 10 to 20 ish<br>

BUT<br>

If you shoot large rolling wide expanding landscapes <strong>infrequently:</strong> you can stitch for those odd times.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm looking into a buying my first wide-angle lens and I'm thinking about Nikon's 24mm 2.8D lens...I have a D300s, and I'm wondering if it'll be "wide enough" for everything I'll be wanting to shoot, including landscapes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For FX and 35mm film, 35mm is my ideal urban walk-around prime, but not my ideal wide landscape lens. A 24mm lens would give about the same angle of view with a DX camera, so I'd say probably not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are there distortion issues at all with the 20mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It's subtle, but it's complex 'mustache' distortion. To me, it's not really noticeably with most landscapes. With cityscapes it can be seen, but in my experience most people don't notice. With a DX camera, some of it's cut out. Lightroom (v3.2) corrects it, it's on DxO's road map (a weird map, IMO), and PT lens supports it for FX but not DX, which seems odd.</p>

<p>It's pretty wide for landscapes with FX, but I often go wider with DX. I use a 12-24 zoom for most landscapes I shoot with DX. If budget is a concern, you might look at a used one or check out some of the 3rd party ultra-wide zooms. The only FX zoom I'd consider wide enough for DX would be the 14-24/2.8G, but it doesn't take filters, so I seldom use mine for landscapes with either format.</p>

<p>If you <em>gotta</em> have a prime for wide DX landscapes, then the 20/2.8D is probably your best bet in Nikon glass. Nikon does make a 14mm prime, but you could buy a 14-24/2.8G for about the same money, and neither one takes filters. If your budget allows, there are very nice Zeiss 18mm and 21mm lenses that will also work with FX. They're manual focus, but that shouldn't really matter for landscapes. Good luck with whatever you get.</p>

<p>no. A 12-24mm, 14-24mm, or 11-16 may be more what you're looking for. To contradict what Craig says,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use the 12-24 f/4 Tokina on my D200. Would prefer the Nikon 14-24 2.8 for the bigger f-stop and probably wouldn't miss the two extra mm at that end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>2mm makes a bigger difference than you would think, especially at the super wide end. Also, I don't think the bigger f-stop is much of a factor at all. You said you'd use the lens for landscapes, and how often do you shoot a landscape at f/2.8? I know I shoot landscapes at f/8 or 11, so a fast wide angle has no use to me. Now if you want to do lots of indoor shots, like at a wedding, then the 2.8 would be indispensible. I'm not saying Craig is wrong, each photographer has their needs, I just wanted to make sure you think about what your needs are and what is better for you. Also, if you don't have a good "normal" zoom, then you may want to get a wide-normal lens before getting a super wide. For a crop sensor, I'd get something around 16-18mm on the wide end.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the great responses, I really appreciate it. I think I'm going to buy the 24mm as a good general prime lens that will work well as a wide-angle lens on a full frame camera sometime in the (distant) future. I don't really have the means to spend $1000+ on some of the wide lenses mentioned above, but I'll look around with different brands/used lenses and hopefully grab a decent wide-angle lens sometime.<br>

Thanks again!</p>

<p>I use a 24mm 2.8 all the time on my D50. I find that it is a great little lens. At first I really missed the true 24mm FOV, and sometimes I still do, but I've come to the realization that, in most cases, I really don't need it. On the rare occasion that I do need to go wider, I usually just shoot a 2 or 3 shot pano and stitch the shots later. I also have a 3rd party 19-35, but I rarely carry it since it is bigger and heavier, takes 77mm filters (which I have none of), and the 5mm difference isn't really that great. Although, I have started taking one of my film cameras (coincidentally an F75 like David S. mentioned) as another option when I want to go wider.</p>

<p>The 2.8 max aperture is rarely an issue unless you want to try to isolate a subject from the background. Then you have to get REALLY close. For illustration purposes, I'll post a shot that, as best I can remember, is probably the one and only time I've ever used f2.8 with this lens. For perspective, the nearest building on the right was about 50-60 feet away.</p><div></div>

<p>Many people have shot with nothing other than a mild wide angle lens. Look at the Leica X1 and the new Fujifilm X100--both offer fixed 24mm lenses for their APS-C sensors. How many Leica shooters shot with nothing but a 35? It's a perfectly fine choice--about as wide as you can go before perspective distortion starts becoming more intrusive.</p>

<p>While many might say it's not wide enough for everything you'll want to shoot, much wider and you'd start finding it too wide for many things. I could pretty easily see combining a 20mm with perhaps a 60 macro or 85/1.8 for a two lens kit. These days, zooms are pretty popular for wide angles--you may not get much performance advantage, just size & weight vs. a top zoom. </p>

 

<p>Personally I am quite partial to milder wide angles and even short teles for landscapes. For most of the past year I hiked longer distances with a 300 f4 and a 24 f2.8 as my minimal weight/volume kit, for use with an aps-c dslr (Sony a700 in my case). The 24mm is not <em>always</em> as wide as I would like, but it is very versatile and so compact that it fits in a side pocket of my lens bag for the 300 and so makes for a natural bring-anywhere short prime.</p>

<p>These days I tend not to hike as far so tend to carry more lenses with me, plus I discovered the wonders of Sony's 30mm f2.8 macro, which has become the most frequent passenger of said side pocket instead. My third lens is now most often either a 24-85 zoom or Sigma's 20 f1.8 prime, depending on my expectations of opportunities for more tightly framed versus wide open landscapes and/or brighter versus darker light conditions.</p>

<p>I have a 10-24mm, and I find that I spend most of the time in the 15mm range on landscapes. You can take pictures on 24mm on DX, but it might be a bit 'squishy' if you intend to do landscapes in portrait. For... landscapes in landscape (lol) 24mm can be useful, it just depends on your scene. I do find 10-12 a bit *too* wide... to the point where even details close to you are rendered entirely too small, and perspective distortion is sometimes too strong.</p>

<p>One question for the people who have a 12-24mm Tokina: does the focus ring seem kind of wiggly? I rented one and the focus ring seems to have a little play in it when it's in AF mode.</p>