Is it silly to own both 20mm and 24mm on FX?

[shadowlands]

OK, so I own the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I recently landed a pretty good deal on a Nikon 20mm 1.8G.
Is it worth it, on FX, to swap down to the 20mm 1.8G over the already mounted 24-70 2.8, for extra width, etc, when needed? Landscapes, interior rooms, etc...
Or do you think the difference between 20mm and 24mm isn't worth the $600.00 I spent on the 20mm prime?

 

[pixmedic]

how bad do you need the extra 4mm on the wide end?

 

[shadowlands]

how bad do you need the extra 4mm on the wide end?

I know. I am going to be out in Northern New Mexico in a few weeks, hiking and checking out ruins and endless landscapes. I may know more then.
I loved owning a 20mm prime, when I use to have my former 28-70, but today, I have the 24-70.

 

[CdTSnap]

No way I have the Sigma 20mm 1.4 and I love it. It gives you a point if difference in landscapes or wide angle portraits.

 

[shadowlands]

No way I have the Sigma 20mm 1.4 and I love it. It gives you a point if difference in landscapes or wide angle portraits.

Thanks. I appreciate it. I can't wait to get out in the mountains and give it a try.

 

[petrochemist]

OK, so I own the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I recently landed a pretty good deal on a Nikon 20mm 1.8G.
Is it worth it, on FX, to swap down to the 20mm 1.8G over the already mounted 24-70 2.8, for extra width, etc, when needed? Landscapes, interior rooms, etc...
Or do you think the difference between 20mm and 24mm isn't worth the $600.00 I spent on the 20mm prime?

I think the bit of your question in bold already answers it.
I suspect there are also other factors that make the prime an advantage, its faster by 1½ stops, smaller, less complicated and may give better IQ...
I'm sure many will claim it gives a different rendering of the scene too. There may well be times when you decide to only take the prime!

I've not spent as much on lenses that similar to others I have, but I've spent >$100 on some that are closer in specification. Getting an old MF 50mm/1.4 to supplement my AF 50mm prime, or adding another 200mm prime for it's closer focusing ability for ~$20.

Some of my lens purchases have certainly proved silly, but these are mainly the very cheapest ones, and quite a few of these have given much more fun than the money they cost me would have got at a pop concert/football game...

 

[astroNikon]

wait until you try an 18mm or so.

 

[astroNikon]

I had the 20-35/2.8 at one time when I had the 35-70/2.8
Then I tried a 18-35. Sold the 20-35. The 35-70 was replaced with a 24-85/2.8-4.0 of which the 24/2.8 of the 24-85 had less distortion than the 24mm/2.8 prime that I had, so I sold the 24mm prime.

When it comes to UWA, wider just isn't enough.
I'm afraid to try a 16-35. I'm sure I'll be hooked.

 

[jaomul]

4mm is a lot at the wide end. Almost 2 stops faster is always a lot. It's only silly if it doesn't serve a purpose

 

[PaulWog]

why not an uwa zoom?

 

[EIngerson]

It's absolutely absurd. You should give me one.

 

[shadowlands]

Thanks everyone. If I could afford the 14-24, it would be in my bag. I don't go wide that often so I didn't want to spend too much on another lens.

 

[PaulWog]

Thanks everyone. If I could afford the 14-24, it would be in my bag. I don't go wide that often so I didn't want to spend too much on another lens.

Tamron 15-30. Half the price.

 

[unpopular]

It's important to remember that focal length is not linearly related to AOV, so a small difference in focal length at the short end is moreso on the long end. In fact, this is even more significant on larger formats than smaller, so pairing a 20 and 24mm lens on FX makes more sense, not less.

If I did the math right, a 20mm lens will give you about 68.5 degrees AOV and a 24mm lens will give you 59.25 degrees. I don't know if this is significant enough to justify it or not, for me it's kind of on the edge.

 

[fmw]

OK, so I own the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I recently landed a pretty good deal on a Nikon 20mm 1.8G.
Is it worth it, on FX, to swap down to the 20mm 1.8G over the already mounted 24-70 2.8, for extra width, etc, when needed? Landscapes, interior rooms, etc...
Or do you think the difference between 20mm and 24mm isn't worth the $600.00 I spent on the 20mm prime?

I think it is important to understand that it isn't about "width." It is about perspective. The 20 will allow you get closer to the subject with the same image size but being closer will change the perspective.