24mm f/2.8, or 28mm f/2.0?

[tim_klimowicz]

Hi folks.

I'm looking to buy a new wider angle FD lens to add to my small (but

growing) collection.

 

Anyone have experience with both of these lenses? From the bit of

research I've done, I see there's a couple different types of each

(24mm SSC, for instance). Are there any specific lenses I should look

for, and any I should avoid at all costs? I'm really just trying to

weigh the pros and cons of each, and the rarity (and higher prices) of

the 24mm lenses are really making me consider settling for the

28mm.....but I have a feeling it would be a waste, as I'd probably

still crave the 24mm at some point in the future..

 

Thanks.

[John Crowe]

I have only had the 24mm f2.8 SSC. Yes, there are many variations of these two focal length lenses and I understand that they all perform well. The decision comes down to the particular angle, speed and money. What focal length you go with may depend on what other lenses you have and what future focal lengths you may want. For instance 20, 28, and 50 would be a good combo, as would 24, 35, 50. Personally I have gone 17,24,35,55 +++. Good luck.

[tim_klimowicz]

Currently, I've got a Canon 50mm 1.8, a Canon 35-105mm 3.5 macro (the blades are oily, and the aperture is stuck wide open at 3.5 - I rarely use it these days), and a Vivitar 70-210mm (which I LOVE!). Since I'm a bit heavy on the zoom side, I'm wanting to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and get the wide angle.

 

I guess all I wanted to know was which of these lenses (in both focal lengths) should be avoided, if any. Very good news to hear that they're all well-made!

 

Thanks!

[peter_kim2]

The 24 is also more expensive. I got a 28 in good condition for $25 on ebay the going rate for the 24 is around 150

[bobby_black]

For landscape use, the 24 is my favorite 35mm focal length. I have the FD 24 2.8 (newest version) and enjoy using it so much that there have been times when I've gone hiking with it as my only lens knowing I wouldn't be disappointed. The image quality has been great and sharp, it takes the same 52 mm filter as the standard lenses and I haven't noticed any distortion. I'm happy with it and feel no need for getting a 28. If you decide on the 28, do as the old timers do -- move the tripod backward. ;)

 

If you get one, make sure you get the correct hood with it. They can be tough to find on thier own. Make sure it's on correctly too. I made the completely stupid mistake of trying it in a different position to block sunlight coming from an angle and it blocked the light from hitting the negative instead. Got weird elliptical images.

[tim_klimowicz]

@Peter

Yeah that's one very attractive thing about the 28mm.. But I figured I'll be willing to spend the same amount of money on either, and the 24mm f/2.8 seems to be going for roughly the same price as the faster 28mm f/2 on ebay. If the extra stop of speed is worth losing a few degrees of view for the same price, maybe I'll just go that route.

 

@Bobby

That's what I'm expecting (hoping!) will happen. Last hike I went on, I had a choice between the 35-105mm 3.5 with a broken aperture, or a well-functioning and much lighter 50mm 1.8.. I would have died to trade the 50mm for either a 28mm or 24mm.

[david_goldfarb]

I've had both, and they served different purposes.

 

I liked the wide aperture of the 28/2.0, since it's hard otherwise to get selective focus with a wide lens. The 28/2.0 was mostly an environmental-portrait-in-a-tight-space lens for me. I used the 24 more for interiors and landscapes. 28 is the widest lens that still has a relatively natural rendering of objects in space, and 24 is where things start to "look wideangle." I've probably used the 24 more than the 28. Eventually I sold off my FD 20, 24, and 28, because I prefer large or medium format for wideangle photography.

 

I'd get the 28/2.0 and save up for the 24/1.4L, if you want to go wider, but that's just me.

[pensacolaphoto]

I use both the 24mm/2.8 and the 28mm/2.0 SSC lenses. The 24 lens is one of the most useful for nature photography (in my opinion). I like the 28mm/2.0 lens for photography indoors or when I want a less distorted wide angle look. The 24mm lens is still OK for natural looking photos. Get both.

[fast_primes]

The decision between the two lenses should be based on what the rest of your system is and the filter threads. You might prefer the older 55mm filter thread breach lock lenses or the newer and lighter 52mm filter thread bayonet mount lenses. Also, Canon made a 24F2.0FD lens as well. So you might go with a 24/35/85 system or a 28/50/100 for example.

[._._z]

First decide if you need a 24mm or a 28mm. They give different looks.

[marcin berduszek]

And what do You Think about FD 28/2.8 ?

Is 28/2.0 muche better? (in case of picture quality)

 

Marcin

[jtk]

Faster wide lenses are easier to focus than slower wide lens. That's the only advantage to f2. I love my 24 2.8. I certainly would avoid the later plastic models that were built for the plastic A series cameras, if only on principal.

 

I have the sense that with people pictures, the 24 doesn't distort much more than the 28...I'd use a 35 more often for that if I wanted to tote more lenses...as it is all I usually carry is the 24 and a 100.