24/2.8 or 20-35/2.8

[notelliot]

can't decide. the 24 is going to be much cheaper, and lighter. i have an 18-70 which kind of makes a 20-35 pointless to have except for use on one of my film bodies, not that i use them a whole lot..

:er: what do you guys think?

 

[oCyrus55]

I would go with the 24mm. Like you said, it will be cheaper and you already have an 18-70mm. The 24mm will probably be pretty sharp since it is prime.

 

[THORHAMMER]

what 18-70 do you have ? what is the max aperature?

 

[notelliot]

nikon.. i think max aperture is 22 or 36

 

[boclcown]

When he says max apature, he means the smallest. See, the smaller the apature, the larger the opening, hence the reverse terminology.

 

[fmw]

can't decide. the 24 is going to be much cheaper, and lighter. i have an 18-70 which kind of makes a 20-35 pointless to have except for use on one of my film bodies, not that i use them a whole lot..

:er: what do you guys think?

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Apparently, you plan to use it on a digital so it will be a wide angle of very models "wide angleness."

The focal length is covered by your zoom. If you want better image quality than the zoom, then this will do it for you. If you are looking for something lighter to carry this will also do it for you. I can't tell from your post what you are after.

 

[THORHAMMER]

if the max is 4.0 then its worth it for you to get a 28-75 2.8

I also am not really sure what your looking for, you might not be either...

dont worry its normal... lol