24mm vs 28mm

[Wandering Pugilist]

So I've been reading user reviews on both the Tamron and Sigma.

Apparently the Sigma has problems with front focus and many people report receiving "bad copies", although most of those are for the Canon lens. I believe the Nikon lens is a bit newer so there has been less time for testing, but does Sigma problems typically show up on the same lens regardless of what camera it's made for?

Also, the Tamron lens most people are reporting it works fine, although a few are also reporting needing to constantly return it due to receiving defective copies and some report significant vignetting after 2 years of use.

Are the Nikon prime lenses typically more durable?

 

[JerryPH]

Some 2nd generations had focus issues, not the 3rd gen. No one that I know has this. (I was a member of the Flickr Sigma 18-50 group for over a year and also did about 2 months research before purchasing. The 3rd gen has been out now well over a year.

If there was a blatant issue, I would be VERY happy to tell you. The Tamron is also not without faults. About 30% of them over time slowly started to rattle and do wierd things... becuase the 3 retention screws inside that held the front element to the lens came loose. Some loctite a small screwdriver and 30 min work most often fixed that. For people not mechanically inclined, sending it back to Tamrom was a 170 dollar bill, plus shipping and not covered under warranty for some reason.

Focus tests done with my Sigma 18-50:

Near perfection.

 

[digital flower]

I love my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon. The price was right for me. The macro feature (not 1:1) is nice since the minimum focusing distance is 7.1".

In this thread I posted some pictures shot with my D70s. The 24mm works well on the new FX camera.

 

[JerryPH]

Minimum focus distance for the 18-50 is really thin, just under 1 inch:

And though it is a 3:1 macro, the results are not all that terrible:

Click on the pic above to see a bigger (still not full size, though) shot.

 

[Wandering Pugilist]

Thanks for the examples Jerry. How long have you had the lens for?

 

[rufus5150]

Second, wide lenses are TERRIBLE portrait lenses.

Actually 'Go wide and push in tight' is a rising (if not nearly fully risen) trend in portraiture. You just have to position the subject so that the distorted bits are contextual, not part of the subject.

 

[JerryPH]

Thanks for the examples Jerry. How long have you had the lens for?

Over a year, coming up on 1.5 years now.

 

[JerryPH]

Actually 'Go wide and push in tight' is a rising (if not nearly fully risen) trend in portraiture. You just have to position the subject so that the distorted bits are contextual, not part of the subject.

Not so much a trend as a fad. Fads come and go for a reason... just like when we thought certain things worked well in the past, today we look at them and chuckle at how obtuse they really are.

Examples include the faces of the B&G in a brandy snifter, having the bride kneel down and using the back of her dress raised up higher than her head and used as a reflector or cutting off people's heads in whole or in part.

These are all "stylistic" examples and I would place using a wide angle lens up tight as a portrait lens right up there beside the picture of someone who's nose is smack dead center of a shot taken with a fisheye. That nose looks HUGE and the rest of the face rolls off into the background.

A wide angle obviously doesn't distort things that bad, but it is there, and that is the same kind of effect you are giving your subject just to a lesser degree. Now, since a traditional portrait is all about making your subject look good, I cannot see how giving some chunky lady big chipmunk cheeks could be aesthetically pleasing...lol That kind of effect has no place in a portrait photographer's portfolio, but it may perhaps have a place in some photographer's portfolio that has a loose artistic twinge of a specific kind.

Technically incorrect, visually not flattering, it can still be used from an artistic perspective, but now it is merely a matter of opinion.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Well, no crap a wide angle is not great for headshots. But there is more to portrait work than head and shoulders shots.

 

[JerryPH]

I never said that there wasn't more to portrait work than head and shoulders shots. The point being the distortion is there with a wide angle lens irrespective if it is a full body or an up close and personal nose shot. Wider hips or wider nose... in general, neither are positive traits. If in doubt, ask any woman... lol.

We've mentioned that one can use any lens and take any shot with it, but the whole point was that the OP was not aware of the distortion issues and now that he does, can make a better decision based on this new knowledge, nothing more.

I don't want to drag the conversation away in to artistic interpretations or style differences. In that world, there are *no* rules and everything goes, based on your tastes desires or goals.

 

[bhop]

FWIW, I have a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 lens and probably use it more than any of my other lenses. (that's actually it in my avatar) I think in actual use, compared to internet tests, the wide distortion isn't so big a deal.

It also is good for me that it's not a DX lens because that lets me use it on my FE and F100 as well as my D cameras.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Like I said, there are 2 kinds of distortion going on with a wide angle lens. One is the actual optical distortion-- as in, curving lines near the edges of the frame. The other is the change in relative distance between different aspects of the image as you get closer and closer to something.

A high quality WA will minimize optical distortion, though some is inevitable. The only thing that control the perspective distortion is distance to subject. However, on a crop camera, 28 or 35 is hardly wide enough for that to be a major issue unless you're trying to shoot headshots. And even then, for something like boxing photos, the subject's "attractiveness" is hardly going to be the primary concern.

 

[djacobox372]

Thanks for the replies!

I am using a Nikon D80. I guess I am trying to "get the best bang for my buck", which I know almost never works out in photography. My biggest concern is the room I have for shooting in a low-light situation (boxing gyms, so as you can imagine, not a whole lot of room). I'm not really looking to do headshots, as my 50mm has worked out, at least to my satisfaction it has. I am rather trying to capture entire subjects and with the 50mm, I have to back up, more than I want to at least.

So on Jerry's advice (Thanks bro), I am reading through many reviews on the net. It looks like I'd get more distortion with the 24 than the 28, but I also like to take landscape and I'm reading a 28 offers less versatility. So, in my situation, should I go for a 28 and save up to buy something SUPER wide angle, or just put in the extra $100 for the 24?

To chime in on the distortion issue: the lens length doesn't affect distortion, it's the range to the subject. There is no difference in distortion between a 50mm and a 24mm lens if the subject is at the same distance from the camera in both shots--obviously the subject will fill the frame more completely with the 50mm.

So, just make sure you are 12-15 feet or more from your subject when shooting anybody with any lens, and distortion won't be a problem.