when do you reach for a 24mm lens (for 35 mm photos)?

[summitar]

Although I have been using 35 mm cameras for over 40 years, I have only been a fanatic for the past 6 years. I

mainly used prime lenses and it really wasn't until the advent of digital that I started really using zooms. I

still like to use film and I talked myself into believing that I really needed a 24 mm lens based on some

interior shots taken in various European cities where I had nothing wider than 35 mm. So I got one (actually 3,

a Nikon AI, a Canon FD, and a Minolta MD). I have only shot a few rolls and the results are not inspiring. They

are not recommended for people, because they show up as tiny if they are very far away, and show up as distorted

if they are close. There are some wide subjects where you can't get far enough away to capture the whole scene

without such a wide lens, but then you lose detail.

 

So what types of scenes and subjects make the best use of their qualities? I starting to think that 28 mm is

plenty wide enough.

[michaelging]

I am a bit of a wide angle nut. I think that nothing gives depth to a photo better than great light and a wide angle lens. I find that there are rules to using one, like not putting a persons head in the corner , and not tilting the lens , unless you want converging lines, which I sometimes do. I have been using my 17-35 mm lens on my D3 for a large project that I am working on, mostly people photos ,and its the 17mm side of the lens I use most. In fact I find the 24 mm almost a normal lens for my photography rather than a 50mm lens.

[connealy]

I did some shooting with my 24mm Super Takumar last Spring. The occasion was a visit to

Albuquerque by <a href="http://connealy.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-never-pass-up-chance-to-

photograph.html" target="new">some vintage aircraft</a>. I liked the results, though it was a challenge

to keep the sun out of the lens at times. You also need to get close to the subject and pay attention to

the verticals, but the distortion can be a plus sometimes too. The super wide-angles are really nice in

small spaces. I've also had very nice results from a 15mm Voigtlander lens with some architectural

subjects.

[Andy Collins]

I just bought a 24mm at the flea market for $10.00 for my Canon FT to use for landscapes and skyscapes. I use the 17-40 f/4L on my 1v a lot for the same types of shots, and the same lens is usually on my 30D, although it becomes a 28-80 or 90mm lens due to the 1.6x magnification factor. I never used to care for wide angle, but in the last couple of years I have begun using it more than ever.

[jamespjones]

In terms of professional usage - look at Galen Rowell's work to see examples of the 24mm in use. Great for mountain

photography evidently - as a nice compromise of weight and sharpness + field of view.

 

I, like Michael Ging, used to keep the 24mm on my camera a great deal of the time. Only recently I have been using

longer lenses much more frequently.

 

I think the 24mm f2.8 is a great lens to capture fixed images from a low angle with a great DOF (small aperture, slow

shutter). Not great for people portraits. A the same time, it doesn't have the dramatic distortion that I associate with

super-wide angle lenses.

 

James

PhotographyRI

[david_barts2]

I upgraded to a 24mm as my "standard" wide angle lens this year. I wanted something faster than my 28/3.5, and sometimes wished for a

wider lens, so I splurged and spend a little extra for a 24/2.8. Also, that way I have a nice logarithmic progression of focal lengths (24, 50,

100, 200).

 

And it's all used, so I spent a fraction of what I would had they been fancy, new, state-of-the-art autofocus wonder-lenses.

[arjun_mehra]

I don't think one can lay down rules for when to use any sort of lens. I find I use my 20mm lens more often than enough to warrant my owning it; it allows me — sometimes, encourages me — to be more creative than just my 50mm could. When I do use it most? It's easier for me to name some of the things for which I don't find it suited: photomacrography, for one. Some people probably find wide-angle macros interesting, for their novel, almost claustrophobically-close perspective; I find them too awkward to frame with, and I feel limited by how close I can ultimately get to my subject. As well, I don't favor my 20mm for so-called "candid" shots — sure, I can shoot without much worry about getting everything in focus, but the product tends to be to unnatural for my expectation from such photography.

 

Of course, to each his own: If you find you're holding on to a lens you don't really like and don't have much use for, rather than hope it'll eventually find its keep, experiment and decide whether or not you feel it ever will be worth having to you. If you conclude it simply won't be used often enough, don't delude yourself further: sell it, and buy something you'd like, instead (or, save for retirement...whatever floats your boat).

[ronald_moravec1]

Wide have a few uses. When you can`t get back far enough. When you want to make close objects larger compared to the background.

 

The disadvantage is things get small in the frame. There is a reason why 35/50mm are considered normal lenses and why you need to use them when possible for the most pleasing perspective.

[subbarayan_prasanna]

Like Arjun said, I think it is up to the picture taker to compose the image in a desirable way. Conventionally,

people say that the Wide angles work well for architectural images. I think it is more because of the particular

kind of perspective and the intensity of elements in an architectural scene. I have used CZJ 20mm Flektagon in

Seattle, Detroit and Rome in varying situations. Here are a few samples. Regards sp.<div></div>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

Here is another.<div></div>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

One more<div></div>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

Yet one! more horizontal.<div></div>

[luis triguez]

With a 24 you can make big things smaller and little things bigger.<div></div>

[steve_bellayr]

I use it for cityscapes as it brings me closer to the object with less interference by passerbys.

[chuck_foreman1]

Kerry,

 

Like you I've had little occasion to really use a wide angle.. although I often thin my landscapes and architechtual studeis might benefit, I'm deterred by the high cost most of these lenses command.

I though a CZJ Flektagon 25mm might be found cheap enough... wishful thinking! I guess I need to be patient. I have 28mm but wihle good in tight areas or "able" to squeeze the image I want onto the frame,

I too have yet to really "get it" with WA.

Luis.. I think your example says it best!!

[summitar]

Thanks for the advice. And thanks for the photographic samples. Small world in that I live in the Seattle area, am a graduate of the U of Wash (among others), used to drive by the houseboats on a daily basis, and have also had the the thrill and pleasure of viewing the marvelous 2000 year old Roman aqueduct in Segovia, Spain which Luis provided.

 

I will stick with it and try to make more comparisons with my 28mm's and 35mm's.

[patrick j dempsey]

I love my 24mm Zuiko. It's just wide enough to get lots of background into the shot and if you are careful about

the angle you hold the camera, you should not get much distortion. Which means great wide landscapes without the

horrors of the fisheye look, as well as distortion when you want it. When do I reach for mine? As often as

possible.

<br><br>

<img

src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Zuiko%20100mm%20f2_8/amber_100_24/ambercraggy2_03_24.jpg">

<br><br>

To get more background in a portrait.

<br><br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Olympus%20OM4/24mm/truedef_24mm_15.jpg">

<br><br>

To get wild effects with architecture.

<br><br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Laurel/Laurel1_14.jpg">

<br><br>

To get full-body shots in tight spaces.

<br><br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Molly_and_Joey_reception/mjC_06b.jpg">

<br><br>

For moving quickly through events.

<br><br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Megan%20Snow%20OM-1%20FP4/megansnow10.jpg">

<br><br>

For just enough distortion.

<br><br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Megan%20Snow%20OM-1%20FP4/megansnow24.jpg">

<br><br>

For sweeping curves.

<br><br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Tammy%20OM-1%2024mm/tammy10.jpg">

<br><br>

For dramatic lines.

<br><br>

<img src="http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b15/patrickjdempsey/Color%20Film%202005/thanksgiving323.jpg" width="700">

<br><br>

For large groups in small spaces.

[tlr]

Luis, nice Seat 600, a symbol of Spanish motorization with a great background.

[john_shriver]

I find anything wider than 28mm gets rather specialized, tricky to use effectively.

[Andy Collins]

Great shots, Patrick! Very cool compositions and excellent color, or lack of the same in the b&w's.

[arjun_mehra]

Patrick, I love the "When do I use mine?" comment followed by the captioned images — it's as though out of a commercial — lol.

 

Love, too, this quotation of Luis: "With a 24 you can make big things smaller and little things bigger."

 

Something I shall say is, focusing with a very wide-angle lens can be a bit of a pain, it becoming difficult to figure out when something close to you is really in focus, as things usually are never "totally dismal."

[rustys pics]

Yes, that 24mm Olympus Zuiko is one of the nicest ever made. I used mine this spring with some old Kodak HIE and found how much I miss using a good prime wide angle.<div></div>

[alberto_c]

I am with John Shriver, even 28mm can be tricky to master. It is quite deceptive when you try to fit a 10 miles landscape in a 24x36mm frame through a 24mm lens. One has to remember that "not enough foreground" ruins this kind of pictures. For that reason, cityscapes look usually nice (cities use to be full of foreground things) and distant landscapes look very flat.

 

Patrick Dempsey's commercial is funny ... but true!

[Mike Gammill]

With wide angle lenses aiming the camera even the slightest bit upward will cause tall structures (buildings, trees, telephone poles, etc.) to look like they're "falling over." That's why view cameras allow the bellows to tilt the lens to compensate. For 35mm there are expensive tilt/shift lenses that correct this. So with the 24mm lens keeping it level is even more critical than say with a 28 or a 35mm wide angle. In fact if you stand far away enough from a really tall building, even a 50mm lens will show this effect. Of course if you do your own printing, you can tilt the easel and stop the lens down to correct. So to answer your original question: when do I reach for a 24mm? Two reasons: 1- when a 28 isn't wide enough to cover everything 2-when I want to exagerate the size of foreground objects more than I can with longer lenses.

I know that 4mm difference in focal length between a 28 and a 24 doesn't seem like much, but in angular coverage you are moving from a 75 degree field of view to an 84 degree field of view. Fortunately, the price of 24mm lenses are a lot more reasonable than they were 35-40 years ago. So I would say, carry both with you if possible.<div></div>

[arjun_mehra]

I find the 4/20 Zeiss Flektogon to be a wonderful lens.