Which one for landscapes - 24mm vs. 20-35

[denise_duhamel]

Many thanks to those who responded to my earlier post about when to

visit Yosemite. The info was really very helpful. My next quest is

to determine which wide angle lens would be the best choice for

photographing Yosemite. I shoot with Minolta Maxxum systems and

among my lenses is a 28-85mm 3.5-4.5. I doubt that 28mm is wide

enough for Yosemite, but that is currently the widest lens I own. Is

there enough noticeable difference between 28mm and 24mm for me to

invest in a 24mm prime lens? I can't afford a straight 20mm prime,

but my other thought was 20-35mm 3.5. Is there noticeable distortion

with the 20-35? My goal is to invest in an affordable lens that will

allow me to capture the beauty of Yosemite. Can anyone suggest any

articles/reviews on either of these lenses from Minolta? Any

feedback on either a 24mm prime or 20-35mm zoom would be greatly

appreciated. Thanks.

[stan_murawski__jr.]

Hi Denise,

 

Most zoom lenses made today work almost as well as the prime lenses. The 20-35mm zoom would be a great choice. I walk around with a 17-35mm lens as my normal lens. Size up your shot and switch between the 20-35mm and your 28-80mm. Another good zoom lens choice would be something between 70/80-200mm.

[brien_szabo]

I just got back from Acadia (weather was great) Otter Cliff shots came out wonderful! I used my 20-35 a lot there BUT through many trail and error in the past, I refuse to use 20mm if i have a horizon line because most times it bends the picture more than i desire - the lowest i use is just a notch below 24mm maybe squeek to 22mm. You have to be careful on the wide end. A prime 24 is probably better plus it will make you think more about what you're shooting and the glass is better!

[dick_ginkowski]

Prime lenses have their place but I am not so sure I would fork over for a 24mm. In fact, I have my 20mm on the shelf. For those shots I now use a Tokina 20-35 ATX-Pro. Here's why:

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with a prime lens. They may be a tad sharper and certainly are often able to shoot in much lower light.

 

The big HOWEVER is that we rarely use wide angle lenses wide open. We use them in situations where there is a great mass and a need for great depth of field.

 

A GOOD (emphasis good as opposed to a $199.95 special 19-35) wide angle zoom will serve you well. You will have the flexibility to compose better shots with great depth of field.

 

I highly recommend the Tokina ATX-PRO.

 

Good luck.

[david_goldfarb]

I'd go for a 24mm prime over the zoom. Zooms all entail compromises. Most of the current designs seem to accept linear distortion in exchange for greater flatness of field. If you can't afford an OEM lens, the Sigma 24mm/2.8 is surprisingly good. It's long been one of the better lenses in that line.

[brian_hinther2]

The answer to your first question is yes, there is more difference than you might think. The answer to your second question is yes, there is considerable distortion in most wide-angle zooms. There is also considerable vignetting. And neither of these usually makes much difference in landscape photography.

 

Unfortunately, the Minolta 24 and 20-35 don't look like Minolta's best efforts. Photodo rates the Sigma 24 prime much better for only $189 from B&H. You'd want to check out the build quality, but the performance is there.

 

Among wide-angle zooms, one of the best values may be the Tamron 20-40. It runs $589, but delivers incredibly better performance than the $464 Minolta 20-35.

 

Take lots of pictures at Yosemite!

[karl_lehmann]

Yes, there's a big difference between 24mm and 28mm. 24mm is my favorite focal length for landscapes.

 

At very wide angles there's a more noticeable difference in quality between zooms and primes than at at more moderate focal lengths. Flare, especially, is more of a problem with the zooms. That said, I usually take a 20-35 when traveling or hiking... the trade off is worth it to me for convenience & lower weight.

 

You might also consider trading your 28-85mm for a 24-85mm instead of adding another lens; I believe Minolta makes a fairly well-regarded one. Then, if you find really like wide angle you could add a super-wide prime later. Lenses wider than 24mm get harder to use effectively... it might be better to get used to the 24mm first.

[ShunCheung]

If you can afford it, I would go for a 20-35mm zoom because it is more flexable. Generally speaking, a wide angle zoom will have more distortion, but for landscape shots, a bit of distortion isn't going to be noticable. I do have a few slides with the horizon near the top of the frame, and you can tell that the horizon isn't a straight line. The real issue with wide angle zooms is flare, especially for sun rise/sun set shots with the sun inside the frame.

 

The 24mm is a great landscape lens. But sometimes you'll need a 28mm or 35mm, and occasionally 20mm is better. A good 20-35mm zoom will cover the entire important wide angle range and is more useful.

[denise_duhamel]

Wow - another amazing round of responses! It looks like the zoom is favored over the prime 6:1. I'll just have to do a little more research on which brand to go with. I always believed that it was best to go with the camera brand when buying lenses. I own the following maxxum lenses - 28-85mm macro (one of my favorite lenses), 50mm 1.7, 70-210mm 3.5-4.5. Within the last year, I bought two Tamron lenses that I've been really pleased with - the 90mm 2.8 1:1 macro, and the 28-300mm zoom. So my first instinct is to go with the Minolta brand - or the Tamron, because these are the ones I have experience with. But I guess I should read some reviews/tests on Sigma and Tokina too - I'm not familiar with the performance of those lenses. Can anyone direct me to a link for reviews of lenses in the 20-35mm range? As always, thanks for your help.

[work-page]

One of the considerations that always seems to be left out is the minimum focussing distance. Primes are invariably better than zooms in this respect. For generic landscape shots, this may not be much of a problem. On the other hand, if you do intend to do close-ups of objects in their environment with the wide angle lens, it may be a decisive factor.

[gary_jean1]

Having been to Yosemite in May, I used a Canon TS-E 24mm a lot for the perspective control, but often 24mm was not wide enough, so I was glad to have a 17-35 zoom.

[Brian]

There's not much difference between a 28mm prime and a 24mm prime, but I think the visible differences between the wide end of a 28-85 zoom and a 24 prime would be considerable. I use a 24 prime for various subjects including landscapes and I don't want anything wider. I think beyond that you get into the realm of special effects. Also, I think the distortion which afflicts wide angles is probably worse in the "affordable" super-wide zooms than in the top-price ones (surprise surprise). If price is an issue, go for the 24 prime. I have the Sigma 24/2.8 and I think it's a good buy.

[dane_skye]

As far as Yosemite goes any wideangle lens will work. All of the major shots actually work better with something in the 28-80 range. 24 and 21 are really almost too wide. I used a 24 at some shots, but found myself going to a 50mm for a better composition at every major viewpoint.

 

Also, the is a great book by Mike Frye on photography in YNP, it's great and cheap at any store in the park. He even does a slide show at Camp Curry you may try to catch one night.

 

good luck and be sure to goto Glacier Point.

[alex_lofquist]

I use my zoom down to 24mm, but if I need to go wider I like my prime 20mm, as it has less distortion and much less flare! Flare is difficult to avoid in the (almost) panorana prespectives that you will want to create in Yosemite. I think that if 24 mm is the widest you want to use, get the 24mm prime, and later consider a zoom of some type: perhaps a 28-85.

 

Alex

[markus_arike]

Denise, I took a look at the "Lens Survey" at Photozone.de and in the Minolta line, you have several very good choices of wide angle lenses.

Regarding wide angle zooms, I think one of the things that distiguishes the better quality "G" of "L" zooms i.e. 17-35 2.8, 20-35 2.8 is the fact that compared to the consumer wide angle zooms, they have much less distortion. I've read here on Photo.net many times that distortion is not a big deal in landscape photography, but to me if the horizon curves, it's a problem. As you know, Minolta makes two that might interest you: the 20-35 3.5-4.5(around $460) and the 24-50 f/4($360). Both are supposed to have good sharpness, but photozone.de rates the 20-35 as having "heavy distortion" at the wide end. Interestingly, the 24-50 they rate as having "little distortion", so this might be a lens to look into. The 17-35 G lens is supposed to be "Superb", but it is extremely pricey. That leaves you with the primes, specifically the 24.2.8, which <I>without a doubt</I> would be my choice. The flare will be better and it will be sharper. Optically, it is rated as "Superb" when stopped down and "very good" wide open. I took a look at B&H's web site, and the 24 2.8 looks like a great little lens: compact, nice "petal" lenshood. It sells for $339 which is about what the Canon equivalent sells for. Lastly, you could take Shun's suggestion and trade for one of the 24-85 and 24-105 Minolta zooms. Not a bad idea, but I would go with the 24 2.8 for the above reasons. Whatever you do, stick with the Minolta as they have several excellent offerings in this range. Good luck. If you want to read more ratings try http://www.photozone.de and http://www.photodo.com. Take Care.

[wendy_negus]

Get the prime and learn to shoot with it. 24mm is a good focal length. You'll get the DOF chart on the lens, which you'll use more often than you think. And, if you include the sun in any shots there will be FAR less flare with the prime. Stop the lens down to f/16 or f/22 and the sun will make a nice "star" pattern.

[denise_duhamel]

Well, after carefully reading through this thread again, I think I will go with the 24mm 2.8. It seems the prime has received better reviews than the 20-35mm. In addition, as more people responded to this thread, the odds seemed to favor the 24mm over the 20-35mm. I guess it all comes down to a matter of personal choice. The price is in the ballpark of what I was looking to spend. And, most importantly, it will suit my needs. Thanks to everyone for your very helpful suggestions.

[ShunCheung]

Interestingly, I am in the opposite situation. I alrady had 20, 35, 24-50, and 35-70mm lenses a few years ago. Finally I decided to buy a 24mm since I couldn't tolerate the flare in the 24-50, which really isn't that bad but I am demanding. However, I am still planning to get a 17-35 becaues of the convenience.

 

The 24mm is indeed my most used wide angle for landscapes. I rarely bring the 20mm because it is too wide in most cases. However, 28 and 35mm are important focal lengths. As long as you have the 28-85mm to cover that range, getting the 24 is a good solution.

 

For me, I'd like to get a 17/20-35mm which covers the important wide-angle range and gives me the exact focal length I want while keeping the 24mm as a backup when I have the sun inside the frame. Recently I took some sunset shots with the 24mm and there is no flare, which is really nice.

[uncle git]

I just went down this path the last few weeks with a trip to Yosemite.

 

I ended up buying a 20-35 canon 3.5-4.5

 

I`m very happy with the results - however I cannot emphasise the need for a grad ND filter for lanscape work enough - it will make a huge differance to your photographs. I got a Hi-tec .6 soft endge and a cokin P filter holder.

 

Be warned though that at 20mm you have to be carefull not to stack filters etc. I stacked the cokin P holder on top of the protection filter and regretted it last night when I got my shots back. Ah well - live and learn ;-)

 

At the rate I`m making mistakes I`ll have covered all possible ones in no time - I`ll be and expert then ;-)

[marcus_erne]

Hi Denise!

 

I own the 24mm Minolta lens (old version) and I bought it used at low cost.

It is visibly wider than the 28mm setting of a zoom AND you will be surprised about the sharpness and the amount of contrast that this lens delivers.

It has become my most favourite landscape lens.

Unfortunately nothing lasts forever and I am now thinking of getting wiiiiider....

 

The 17-35mm G is a fine piece of glass but VERY expensive! A cheaper option could be the Sigma of the same range with f2.8-4. The Sigma's close-focus ability of 0.5m is not enough for this focal range.

 

The reputation of the 20-35mm seems to be not the best. Some Minoltians called it a "coke-bottle-lens". I don't know....

 

The Tokina 20-35 f2.8 is nice but somewhat cumbersome & heavy.

 

As someone else already said: the minimum focus distance is very important for many shots where you want to include an object in the foreground. Below 28mm you want at least 0.25 or 0.3 meters versus 0.5 or higher that most zooms can only offer.

 

My advice: go for a USED 24mm for starters and than save for the 17-35mm G lens!

 

Cheers,

Marcus

[lennart__str_m]

I´d go for two primes, 20mm and 28mm instead of the zoom. And I would choose original lenses.

1. Wide-angle zooms are not easy to construct. They give much more distortion than primes. Tele-zooms has not that problem.

For a similar cost you´ll get two high-quality primes.

2. Original brand, why? Because every brand has it´s own colour correction. Nikon differs from Minolta who differs from Canon who differs.. Sometimes this is very obvious. I remember a slide show I saw once, fantastic photos from Iceland. The photographer used the Pentax LX system and original lenses with the exception of Tokina 24mm. Every time a Tokina-slide showed one could easily notice a different tone in the picture. That was disturbing and after that the photographer did sell the lens and bought a Pentax original, the problem disappeared.

For the same reason you should not mix UV-filters of different brands.

Canon UV-filters is designed for use with Canon lenses, Minolta UV:s works best with Minolta lenses etc.

Lennart

[lee_shively]

I cannot comment on the quality of the 24mm and 20-35mm Minolta lenses but I can offer some information concerning these focal lengths.

 

When I was a working photographer, I used Nikon equipment and the 24mm f/2.8 was my most used lens. When I became interested in nature photography, the 24mm was the best focal length for landscapes I had available. I now use Canon equipment and the Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 as my most used wide angle lens. It offers flexibility and this particular lens is surprisingly sharp with less distortion than would be expected. It does distort more than a single focal length but in most situations it is not detectable. It does have more elements to cause problems with flare but this can usually be controlled.

 

On the other hand, the 20-35mm zoom lacks depth of field markings. While Canon has a depth of field mode and I have available various cards, books and web print outs of depth of field tables, I find the lack of markings on the lens to occasionally cause some concern when photographing landscapes. My eyes are no longer young, so the depth of field preview is not as helpful as it once was.

 

I am currently considering buying the Canon 24mm f/2.8 lens and the Canon 35mm f/2 lens as additions to my landscape photography. These lenses have depth of field markings and offer somewhat better optical performance as well as a brighter view finder. These points are important to me but may not be of that great a concern to you considering your particular situation.

 

It really boils down to your choice. The zoom is flexible and, when shooting from a tripod at f/11-f/22, it probably will accomplish the vast majority of tasks without complaint. A 24mm single focal length will be a bit better optically, lighter in weight and make it easier to judge the depth of field necessary in landscape photography.

 

As for the comparison of the 24mm and the 28mm focal lengths, there is an obvious difference when looking through the viewfinder and an obvious difference in the photographs. Once you go wider than 28mm, however, you have to work a little harder. I consider photography to be the Art of Exclusion and wide lenses often include more than you really want to show.

[denise_duhamel]

Finally found the time to shoot a roll with my new lens. After reading the numerous responses here. I purchased the Minolta 24mm f/2.8. It performed very well - excellent sharpness, nice contrast, etc. I can see where this is going to become my new favorite landscape lens. Prior to this, I used my Minolta 28-85mm macro f/3.5-4.5 with very good results. But with the 24mm, I noticed that I paid more attention to composition. I also can see a visual difference between 24mm and 28mm. All in all, I am very pleased with my selection and just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the valuable advice and suggestions.<div></div>

[marcus_erne]

Denise,

congrats to the new toy!

 

Just a tip, explore low-level views with your 24mm (e.g. flowers), it is very rewarding to do so.

 

I found Minolta 24mm to work great at f8 and f11...

[brent_hutto1]

I've read this thread with interest because I'm researching a similar question. What can a 28mm do that a 24mm won't do almost as well? My shortest lens is a 50mm prime and now I want to add something wider. I'm hoping to get by with a single wide-angle prime lens so it will either be a 24mm f/2.8 or a 28mm f/2.8 (Pentax manual focus). My thinking is that (since I usually shoot negatives) if the 24mm is too wide and I can't get any closer I could always crop. Of course that ignores the difference in perspective.

 

In the book "Capturing the Landscape with your Camera" by Patricia Caulfield (cf. http://www.photo.net/comments/one?comment_id=5795) I notice that she uses a 20mm wideangle often and 24mm and 35mm from time to time but almost never 28mm. I like that book because it reflects my own favorite subjects, landscapes and nature closeups. Many of her closeups use the 20mm wideangle, although even more of them are made with longer Macro lenses. In general, what does shooting a closeup with, say, a 20mm lens accomplish compared to using a 50mm or 100mm Macro lens for the same shot?