24 f/2.8 or 28 f/2.8 for 10D

[denny_kyser]

I need a lens for family portraits and landscapes and have narrowed

it down to these two. The only problem is that the 24mm f/2.8 is

$110.00 more than the 28 f/2.8. Is this worth the extra $ for the 2mm?

 

The 17-40 f/4 L is a little out of my range right now.

Thanks for any help.

[bellavance]

Hi,

 

If this can help, many years ago I owned a 24/2.8 and a 28-105 lenses that I used with a 35mm camera. I sold the 24/2.8 because of non-use and bought the 20/2.8 which I used a lot.

 

24mm was just too close to 28mm to make a worthwhile difference for me.

 

I now use an EOS 10D and I have (among others) a 17-40/4L, a 24-70/2.8L and a 50/1.4 lenses and I don't feel they overlap because I use them for different purposes.

 

I'm also thinking of getting the 24/2.8 (equiv. to 38mm) or 28/2.8 (equiv. to 45mm) lens for all around lightweight photography.

 

Let's see what the others have to say...

 

Pierre

[bobatkins]

It's 4mm, not 2mm and you're paying for features like floating elements (and better closeup performance) with the 24/2.8, not just the 4mm difference.

 

The 28 (= 45mm full frame) will be better for portraits (though a 35 or 50 would be even better).

 

The 24 (= 38mm 35mm full frame) would probably be better for landscapes.

 

If you hate zooms and don't want the 20-35, I'd get the 24/2.8 for landscapes and a 50/1.8 for portraits.

[mike_morgan1]

<p>Yes, it is worth it. <br>

<br>

The 24mm f/2.8 costs $279.95 at B&H. After you multiply the focal length by 1.6, you pay $7.29/ effective mm.<br>

<br>

The 28mm f/2.8 costs $169.95 at B&H. After you multiply the focal length by 1.6, you pay only $3.79/effective mm.<br>

<br>

Clearly, the 28mm is a much better deal. <br>

<br>

But if you really want to save some money, get the 50mm f/1.8 at $69.95 at B&H. This lens is a

bargin at $0.87/effective mm.<br>

</p>

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600">

<tr>

<td><b>Lens</b></td>

<td><b>$/mm on 1Ds</b></td>

<td><b>$/mm on 10D</b></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>24 mm f/2.8</td>

<td>$11.66 / mm</td>

<td>$7.29 / mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>28 mm f/2.8</td>

<td>$6.07 / mm </td>

<td>$3.79 /mm </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>50 mm f/1.8</td>

<td>$1.39 / mm</td>

<td>$0.87 / mm</td>

</tr>

</table>

<p>Clearly, you are a wise man.  The 10D gives you a much better value as

measured  in $/effective mm.  Consequently, I am guessing you are

going to buy the 50mm f/1.8.</p>

[denny_kyser]

sorry about the wrong mm, can you believe I am a numbers man (finance manager)

 

Anyways I already have the 50 f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4.0 L so looking for something on the wide end that will give me sharp photos. I realize I can crop or walk closer and cant back up in some situations so leaning torwards the 24mm.

[mark pav]

24mm would not be a wide enough angle for landscapes with a 10D, as far as I am concerned. If you want the 24mm perspective after the sensor's crop factor then you need a 15mm lens. Good luck.

[yakim_peled1]

>> 24mm was just too close to 28mm to make a worthwhile difference for me.

 

I'm the complete opposite. I had two 28-105 zooms and always found 28mm a bit dull. I got myself the 24/2.8 and I am very happy with it.

 

Danny, if I had a DSLR I'd surely get the 17-40/4 to do away as possible from the nasty cropping factor. Primes ? I'd get the 20/2.8 (32/2.8) and 50/1.8 (80/1.8). This is as close as I could get to my current kit (35/2 + 85/1.8).

 

Best regards ,

Yakim.

[john_perkins2]

The 28 1.8 is pretty good. It feels like a fast normal lens, something which digital cameras

are usually lacking. It's quite unfashionable to use normal lenses these days, but in the

right hands you can do a lot with it. Close focus is good on that one, and manual internal

focusing is nice too. Try to find one secondhand.

[jean_berthe]

I have both lenses and use them on different occasions:

 

The 24 f2.8 will generate more perspective error (conversion lines top/bottom) when the camera body is not square to the subject. Therefore, I use this lens for landscaping, on a tripod, when I can keep the camera body leveled.

 

The 28 f2.8 allow me to get good perspective even is the camera body is not perfectly squared to the subject. I can shoot looking up or down, hand held, with good results.

 

Also, I found that the 28 f2.8 is more flare resistant: I can shoot with the sun in the frame without any problems but I will get sun trails with the 24 f2.8.

Filter size may be important for you too if you have many 58mm to go with your 50 f1.4, which is the same size as the 24 f2.8. You may need a whole new set of filters if you go with the 28 f2.8 (52mm). I use the 28 f2.8, the 35 f2, the old 50 f1.8, the old 28-70 f3.5-4.5II and the 135 f2.8SF, which all share the same 52mm filter size.

 

Whichever one you choose, don�t forget to get the hood as well :)

 

Good luck

 

JB

[citizensmith1664875108]

$ per mm as a way of judging if the lens is worth buying? what kind of crap is that? I'll sell all my decent lenses and go buy a $100 sigma 70-300. That way I get way more mm for my money than those nasty wide angle lenses.

 

I'm with Yakim on focal lengths. I've own a 28-105 which I really like, but I wanted something wider so (having very little money) I settled on the 22-55. It was OK, but I later got the 20-35. I played with that for a while before realizing I rarely used or liked anything beyond 24 so I switched to the 24 f/2.8 and haven't looked back. Now I own a RebelD the 24 has become a 38 and is my standard walk around lens. I own the 18-55 but it doesn't see much use. Basically I think the 24 is a great choice and way worth the extra cash.

[nathan_simpson]

On a DSLR a 24mm isnt a verry wide angel lens its a 38mm. if you want a fast wide angel i would do the 16-35mm L F2.8 big $$$1370, 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 $370 or a slower 17-40mm L f4 $700 zooms. if you really want a fixed lens i would get the 20mm f2.8 $420 which is a 32mm (used it to day) for olny $150 more than the 24mm. i have a fealing you would use the 20mm alot more than the 24mm. i also sujest getting a 24-70 f2.8 $1300 (used it today)sweet lens. or a cheper but still good 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 $230. you will use one of theas 2 lenses alot. have fun all prices b&h

[vincent_j_m]

I have a 28-105 and a 24/2.8, and even though the 24 is very close to the 28, I use the 24/2.8 much more than my zoom at the wide end. That's simply because the 24/2.8 is such a superb performer, tack sharp, superb contrast and color, no distortion, compact and small.

 

As for your choice - I'd play around with both lenses at the store and get whichever suits me.

[mike_morgan1]

Marcus, you were the only one who didn't seem to catch the sarcasm, which was pretty obvious in my opinion. Just joshing around.

[citizensmith1664875108]

You're right, I didn't. Apologies. Need to not read forums when I'm stressed.

[paul_kurian]

Try 24mm/1.4 L, you wont regret.Sample picture below<div></div>