20mm 3.5 vs. 24mm 2.8

[debbikoplen]

I friend of mine is converting to digital and selling all his Nikon

manual lenses. Among the collection are two wide angle lenes: 20mm

3.5 and 24mm 2.8. Does anyone have an opinion on which I should

buy? Thanks ahead of time for answering and any advice you can

impart.

[stephen hazelton]

The 24mm is handier for general-purpose type photography. If you already have a 28mm, you might want to jump on down to the 20.

[david_h._hartman]

Both, the 24/2.8 is a classic, a must have, the 20/3.5 very good at close range and very well corrected for flare and ghost. If you like shooting into the sun you want the 20/3.5. They are small and light so there is no need to leave either behind.

[lex_jenkins]

Thank goodness...not another portrait lens thread.

 

Yes, get both if you can. Otherwise, go for the 20/3.5. As Pontiac always says, wider is better.

[hugh_t]

Can the 24 2.8 be used for group portraits, or would the 20 be a better choice??

 

Just kidding I vote for the 24.

[jamiew]

I think it depends on if you want the wide look. 24 is about as wide as you can go and still have some vestage of a normal perspective (although it;s not normal it's much easier to control). It is also wide enough for most situations. 20 is about where you start getting the wide look. I say get what you think fits.

[david_kelly1]

There were two 20mm f3.5's: the "UD" non-AI version was big (72mm filter) and heavy but an excellent lens, very

sharp even wide open, surprisingly free of flare but somewhatprone to ghosting. You often find it converted to AI. The

tiny 3.5 AI version is sharp close up but has pronounced curvature of field: not so good for landscapes. I think the

24mm f2.8, which introduced the Close Range Correction feature and has been in the line with various updates since

1968 (!) is a better lens than any of the 20s and because it doesn't shriek "wide angle" useful in a much wider range of

situations. The late Galen Rowell said that most of his work could have been doine with just this lens and the 80-200

f2.8...

[elliot]

I checked out the equipment you have listed here on photo.net, and it says you have a 35mm, and an 85mm, both f2.0. I am not sure if the third party lenses you have listed are for Nikon mount or not, but either way, you bottom out at 35mm for your wide end.<P>If you had a 28mm instead of the 35mm, I would definitely say go for the 20mm, and you would have a pretty good wide angle prime setup. If you are going to keep the 35mm, I would try out the 20mm, and see how big the difference is between the focal lengths, and if the difference is acceptable to you, or if you need to fill that gap. I think a 20mm, 28mm, and 85mm would be best. Think about replacing the 35 with a 28. You could just pick up the 24 and do nothing else, but if you do that, you will not have the extra wide end with the 20mm.

[richard_milner2]

There are numerous threads, discussing these lenses and similar types, which you might to check for a variety of opinions. Here are a few relevant links:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000268

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002TJR

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000fMa

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000O1t

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Baq

 

My opinion is, you should borrow both lenses from your friend and try out which suits you better.

[adrian_morgan]

I borrowed a friends 20mm for a couple of weeks (along with his 80-200, and 300mm - but that's another story), and have the 24mm myself

 

I found if i was wandering around the streets I could comfortably leave the 24mm on and not be too concerned about it being my only lens. The 20mm i found to be more of a special application lens. I shot some things with it and was pleased with the results, but it would sit in my bag for too much time if i owned it.

[jason michael]

Both.,

 

or the 20 as it's a funky focal length which shakes up your view of things.

[wogears]

The 24 is tied with the old Canon 35 f3.5 FL for the prize of Sharpest Lens I Ever Shot With.

[rolf_lockwood]

I should be working but I can't resist this one as you're talking about my two favorite lenses, Debbi. Someone suggested you borrow them both to see which one fits your photographic soul best. Good advice. In the end I'd opt for the 24 if I could only have one of them, but I'd agonize over it. The 20 is terrific fun -- and you can do lots of 'normalish' things with it long before you get to playing with the super-wide distortion. I've done environmental portraits with it that didn't scream 'very wide lens'. But put a K-1 extension ring on it, get close to a toe or a flower or the fender of a car, and then you'll really have some perspective fun. It takes some care, however, whereas the 24 can be treated more casually. You can also fool with distortion using the 24 -- even the 28, for that matter -- but you don't have to be so deliberate if you want to avoid it. So in the end, it becoms more versatile. It's also sharper in the final analysis -- my old first-version 24 2.8 AF Nikkor is the sharpest lens I own, aside from a scary Summicron 90, and my even older 24 2.8 non-AI Nikkor is nearly as good. The 20's no slouch either, but not at the same level. I'm assuming that the 20 in question is the little AI or AIS version with 52mm filter size, by the way. The older UD is a bit of a beast and if that's the one on offer, I wouldn't agonize at all -- I'd grab the 24. For what it's worth, my little 20 was pretty much my 'standard' lens for many years but something in my own photo soul has changed and it's been supplanted by the 24. So it's a toss-up that only you can judge. If your friend is a truly fine human being, he'll let you play with them both for at least a couple of weeks. Let us know what you decide.

[ShunCheung]

Debbi, I don't think anybody can provide you a good answer without knowing (1) what other lenses you already have and (2) what type of photography you are into. For example, if you already have a 28mm lens, then a 20mm will give you a more different perspective. Otherwise, generally speaking, the 20mm is a more extreme lens while the 24mm is more a general-purpose lens and a safer choice that works very well with a 35mm lens.

[alex_lofquist]

As mentioned, it depends on what you now have. Though I have a wide range of lenses to choose from, I find that I use 24mm for scenics more often than the 20mm, (There are some situations that cry for a 20!) If you have not used either lens, I would go for the 24 as it is more forgiving as to flare, perspective, and composition. Additionally, the use of a polarizing filter is almost out of the question with a 20.

[dj_soroka]

I sold a 24 mm f/2.8 after 18 years.

 

I felt that I didn't do it justice.

 

Also, I made a concerted effort at the time to only own lenses that I used, and sold off like 6 six lenses then.

 

However, if you want to take pictures in a cramped room, or get most of a room, or just a big scenic, or a whole building, you really have to have a lens at least as wide as a 24.

 

So, in effect, even though there may be other stuff you use more, you end up wanting a 24 or a 20. It ends up being a personal decision.

 

I'll probably wind up picking up a 20 or 24 within the next year.

[david_h._hartman]

You can never be too wide or too rich! I photographed a Sonic

Kidney Stone Buster at a hospital once where the only way to get

the shot was lean the tripod and camera right up against the wall

and compose with the prism removed. The lens was a 15/5.6 AI.<br>

<br>

The 24/2.8 is probably more useful but I like the 20mm better, it

just fun! I forgot about the old 20/3.5 non-AI with the 72mm

filter. I had one years ago. The lens I was talking about above

was the 20/3.5 AIS.<br>

<br>

Ive seen beautiful evening and night photography done with

a 20/3.5 Canon and Canon F1 (old). The photographer's film of

choice was Kodachrome 25 (Requiescat In Pace). A 20mm is very

hand holdable at slow shutter speeds.<br>

<br>

Here is a link with reviews of wide angle Nikkors. I was about to

sell my 20/3.5 AIS after buying a 20/2.8 AIS but on reading <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>Bjørn Rørsletts</u></a>

review I realized I would really miss that little lens.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html"

target="_new"><u>Wide-Angle Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount</u></a><br>

<br>

Again, if at all possible buy them both.

[craig_bridge]

The 20mm takes a VERY different composition style/thought process than 24mm to 35mm lenses. Some of the better 20mm compositions are an in your face style where you get within inches of your subject and still have all this background around it. Based on you uploads the 24mm would fit right in as a wider landscape lens. The 20mm would be a new experience, one you definitely should try out if you can first.

[ryanjoseph]

I personaly own the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor and find it a reliable workhorse of a lens. I find sharpness on it best at f5.6

 

My vote for the 24mm

[40mm]

When you've used the 24 and found that there are occasions when you've wished for something wider, you'll want the 20. All depends on what pictures you might want to take and your way of taking them. Try both, if you can. Take lots of photos and then decide if you need to keep carrying both. Personally, the 24mm is the lens I use more than all the others, 20mm very rarely. But I'm lazy. Getting a composition right and avoiding photos that scream "look at me I'm a wideangle!" takes practise and time, in my experience, you might love it. Experiment.

[larry_miller5]

Both are great focal lengths. Too bad the 20MM isn't the 2.8 AIS version. It would then be no contest. A great near-far lens. The 20MM for sure! However since it's not, go for the 24MM. It's a sweet lens.