wide angle lens advice

[todd norman]

Hey,

 

I've recently bought my first SLR (Elan II) with a 50/1.8 and I'm now

looking to add a wide-angle lens to my kit. I don't know much

reagrding the quality of the lenses at 24 and 28mm...I'm basically

trying to choose between a 24/2.8, 28/1.8, and 24/2.8. Is it worth

the extra cash to spring for the 24? I would be mainly taking street

shots at first, but would also like a lens I could grow with a bit.

Thanks,

 

Todd Norman

[jkantor]

Whatever focal length you get, you'll have to develop a style that uses its potential. But you probably don't need anything faster than 2.8 - unless you want to shoot at night.

 

You might think about the 24-85 zoom. I use that for weddings and it makes a terrific general purpose lens.

[adam_smith7]

I might suggest starting with the 28/2.8 since it's so much

cheaper than the other two options. Until you start shooting,

you're not really going to have a good sense of which you prefer,

abnd 24mm and 28mm are very different.

 

Another option is the 20-35mm zoom. I don't particularly love its

high barrel distortion at 20mm, but it would give you a good feel

for what length you may wish to invest in for a nice prime lens.

It's also a great travel wide angle, because it covers such a big

range. You may even find you prefer the 20mm or 35mm ends

over the middle range!

[steve_dunn2]

<p>All three of the lenses you mention seem to be pretty good. The 28/2.8 is generally said to be somewhat better than the 28/1.8, and it's cheaper, so if you want to start with one of those two, the 2.8 is probably a better choice.</p>

[chuck_dowling]

I just picked up a Tamron 19-35 (F3.5-4.5). This is a new lens from Tamron. I have used it a few times already, and I very pleased with the lens.

[lovethismoment]

<p>

I have the 24/2.8 and love it. I got it and the 50/1.8 to replace my crappy 28-80 zoom and the 24 is actually wider than the 28 end (if it really is 28) than you would expect. I use the 24 quite a bit more than the 50. I'm mainly interested in landscapes but the 24 seems to me to be a very good length for taking indoor photos as it is wide enough to fit in what you want without being so wide you lose all detail and make rooms seem like caverns. Get the hood and you will have relatively few problems with flare. There is also very little distortion.

</p>

<p>

Here's some photo's of a <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/650326>bridge</a>, a <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/415725>landscape</a> and an <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/415726>indoor shot</a> taken with this lens.

</p>

<p>

At the end of the day though it really depends on what perspective you prefer - have a test of both of them before you decide.

</p>

[matan_levinson]

Todd, I suggest you get your hands on a zoom lens that covers the 24 and 28mm for a couple of days. go out, make some photographs and see if you NEED the 24mm. if not, go for the 28/2.8. it's smaller, cheaper and has better optics than the 28/1.8.

 

if you find out that you NEED a 24mm lens, think of the options that had been mentiond before (24-85USM, 20-35USM,24). just remember that the 24/2.8 is non USM. that means slower, louder AF, and more importantly, no full time manual override.

 

matan

[citizensmith1664875108]

Cost wise your looking at $160 for the 28 f2.8, $280 for the 24 f2.8 and $280 for the 24-85 f3.5-4.5.

 

The 24 and 28 are both primes, and are faster and better quality than the zoom. They both lack USM and FTM but are still fast due to their small size.

 

The 24-85 is a good lens, but slower, softer and more prone to distortion. It has USM and FTM, and covers the focal length of both the other lenses for the price of the 24.

 

I own the 24 and love it. I use it for a lot of landscape, city, and transportation photos and it works great. The 24 is also a bit further from your existing 50, giving you a better spread. Its where my vote goes.

[miguel_yus]

I think that, if you don't have any reason for a faster or wider lens, the obvious choice is the 28/2.8. It's cheaper, smaller and lighter than the other options, and takes filters of the same size than the 50/1.8 (52)

I have it, and the results are very good, no complaints.

[carl_weller]

quality-wise there's no big difference btw the 24mm 2.8 and the 28mm 2.8.

 

i'd suggest you to borrow or rent a 24mm and compare it with the 28-80 zoom that you've already got at the wide end (for angle of view, not for image quality).

 

if you don't know already: 50mm has an a.o.v of 46 degrees, 28mm 75 degrees, and 24mm a whopping 84 degrees. the extra 4mm focal length makes a huge difference.

 

i find shots taken with a 24mm much more dynamic and 'wide-angle'. 28mm is, in comparision, a little bit boring to me. all a matter of taste, however.

 

i wouldn't be interested in the zoom because:

 

1. it's comparatively slow (at best 2/3 stop slower than either 2.8 prime).

2. the distortion is shocking compared with either prime you mentioned.

3. most people just use the 'widest' end of a wide-angle zoom anyway (i.e. you'd get better results just buying a prime in the first place!)

 

that was my two cents,

 

carl

[mikemilton]

I have the 24 2.8 - great lens you would not be disappointed.

 

My general advice is always to spend $ in the way that provides the greatest scope - and that would imply to me that the 24 would be better than the 28.

 

I also think that the 24 wil present 'growing' challenges that the 28 would be more forgiving of

 

just some thoughts

 

m

[neal_olroyd]

I've had both the 28/2.8 and the 24/2.8. I'm an enormous fan of the 28/2.8 simply from a monetary perspective ($100 or under). Agreed, you do get more view angle (8-9 degrees) from the 24/2.8 but not enough to achieve that freaky edge distorted look that melts my butter. So IMHO it makes more sense to snag a 28mm to get your feet wet.