24mm vs 28mm

[kundalini]

I can't see these photos at work now, but I remember this thread (from another forum) with pictures and comments by actual users of the 35mm f/2 and was very impressed. It was also a bit disheartening to realize I haven't done as much with mine.

BTW, I just did a quick check and you should be able to get a full body shot from 10' from your subject....... assuming you're not trying to get someone like Shaq in the frame.

 

[Wandering Pugilist]

I can't see these photos at work now, but I remember this thread (from another forum) with pictures and comments by actual users of the 35mm f/2 and was very impressed. It was also a bit disheartening to realize I haven't done as much with mine.

BTW, I just did a quick check and you should be able to get a full body shot from 10' from your subject....... assuming you're not trying to get someone like Shaq in the frame.

Whoa. Nice thread reference man. 14 pages though? Haha. No but the more the better in this context. Thanks a bunch!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I think this might be a good start at looking at the 35mm f/1.8.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Yeah I'm blessed really. Do you like shooting boxing as well?

I've never had the opportunity, but I would love to do so... it's always struck me as a very interesting subject, with maybe more depth than your average sports photography.

 

[kundalini]

Apparently Sigma has come out with a 35mm f/1.4 that might be worth a look.

 

[Wandering Pugilist]

Apparently Sigma has come out with a 35mm f/1.4 that might be worth a look.

The last thing I need at this point is MORE options. lol. But thanks for the info. I'll check it out.

 

[Mike_E]

Get both, an AI'd 24mm is under $100 in great shape fully manual but at that FL zone focusing is a snap. If you go with the 24mm (noticeable distortion) I'd go with the 35mm to compliment it.

 

[Wandering Pugilist]

Get both, an AI'd 24mm is under $100 in great shape fully manual but at that FL zone focusing is a snap. If you go with the 24mm (noticeable distortion) I'd go with the 35mm to compliment it.

I was thinking that, but I can't at this point. But definitely a 24mm and 35mm, so I should just mark the 28mm off the list huh?

 

[Mike_E]

I would with a crop sensor. The 28mm is a great lens with very little distortion but it isn't really wide per se unless used with a FF and then it's the equivalent of a 21mm in a 1.5 crop body. The 24mm of course is an 18mm equiv. on a full frame.

Honestly though why don'[t you look at a Tamron zoom? The 17-50mm 1:2.8 covers everything you mentioned and more.. Tamron | 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] | AF016N700

 

[JerryPH]

I would with a crop sensor. The 28mm is a great lens with very little distortion but it isn't really wide per se unless used with a FF and then it's the equivalent of a 24mm in a 1.5 crop body. The 24mm of course is an 18mm equiv. on a full frame.

Wait, are we talking DX or FX lenses? If we are talking DX lenses, on his cropped sensor, whatever the mm rating, it is what it is. If it is a FX lens on a DX camera (his D80), it is the other way around ... that 24mm turns into a (24 X 1.5) 36mm and that 28 becomes a 42mm. Neither very wide. I would suggest that if width is his priority, the Sigma 10-20mm is the best choice, but if low light sensitivity is more important than width, the Sigma 18-50 EX DC HSM F/2.8 is the better choice.

Honestly though why don'[t you look at a Tamron zoom? The 17-50mm 1:2.8 covers everything you mentioned and more.. Tamron | 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] | AF016N700

I would counter with the Sigma lens because it beat the Tamron and Nikkor 17-55 3 times out of 3 in a shootout last year by 3 independant sources, plus you get a free 3:1 macro tossed in on top of the deal.

Uh oh... we're adding options, not taking them away... lol

Sincerely, the demands of a landscape and portrait lens are vastly different, and though we can take pictures of people with a sub 50mm lens, its just not the same quality and final result as a lens between 85-105mm.

Decisions, decisions!

(for Wandering Pugilist): BTW, did you go to the link in my first post that I provided at the top? If you did, you would have seen that... well... neither prime lens is all that great, both suffer from distortions up the wazoo (both well over 1%, which is pretty significant for a prime!).

Let me give you the direct links and save you a few seconds:

Nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8D - Review / Test Report

Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8D - Review / Test Report

Now, I do not know your budget... but that Sigma to me looks better and better all the time. At the 18mm range, the Sigma has distortion, but less than the 28mm does (it is the better of the 2 between the 24 and 28, BTW). By 24mm its near invisible, and from 35mm up, the lens is basically free of distortion.

Again, let me save you 2-3 clicks:
Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro - Review / Lab Test Report

Now, just to let you know, they preferred the Tamron over the Sigma, which to me is hard to believe based on the tests made by the 3 independent photography magazines back in early 2008 who all chose the Sigma over the Tamron and (3 times more expensive) Nikkor.

Edit: Ok I did some research. The test on the Sigma 18-50 links above were done with the 2nd generation Sigma, which was not as good as the 3rd generation one (the one that you want and the only one that is available new today... the 1st and 2nd gens were discontinued when the 3rd generation was released). You can identify the new Sigmas as the 18-50 DC EX HSM MACRO F/2.8 (first gens were pityful! QC issues, back focusing and poor performance). The distortion is even less on the HSM version as well as an increase in sharpness, reduced CA characteristics and better flare control. Of course, it has the HSM, meaning that cameras like the D40s-D60s can use this lens and still get autofocus to work.

So... how confused are you as to a choice now???

Not that my word makes any difference to anyone here, but I own the 18-50 DC EX HSM, and have been nothing but impressed and very happy with the results it gave me on my D200.

 

[Wandering Pugilist]

Woah. Awesome research there Jerry! Thank you so much!

But like you said, now you just have me even more confused

My budget is probably $350 max, maaaybe $400, but the reason I am so indecisive (apart from my personality), is that I'm trying to find a good fit for my lens so I won't have to keep buying lenses (yeah, like everyone else right).

I experimented with my kit lens in my boxing gym today with a 24mm and 35mm range and found that the 35mm was still too cramped so I'm leaning towards the 24mm, even though it isn't as fast. Well, the kit lens is a DX and I'm not sure if the ones I've been looking at are FX or DX. If it is FX, would that mean a 24mm would show up closer on a viewfinder and the 35mm even moreso?

Well, I'll take a look at all the suggestions, but either way, ya'll have been a ton of help. :thumbup:

 

[Wandering Pugilist]

So I'm taking a look at both the zoom lenses you both have recommended to me. I mean I've always been under the assumption that Nikon glass are better than aftermarket and prime lenses always have better quality results than zoom lenses, but since both zoom lenses appeared to have performed better than both the Nikon lenses, are these statements misleading?

 

[tsaraleksi]

Wait, are we talking DX or FX lenses? If we are talking DX lenses, on his cropped sensor, whatever the mm rating, it is what it is. If it is a FX lens on a DX camera (his D80), it is the other way around ... that 24mm turns into a (24 X 1.5) 36mm and that 28 becomes a 42mm. Neither very wide. I would suggest that if width is his priority, the Sigma 10-20mm is the best choice, but if low light sensitivity is more important than width, the Sigma 18-50 EX DC HSM F/2.8 is the better choice.

No, a DX lens has still got to be multiplied out just as a traditional lens would. (ie an 18-200 DX Nikkor multiplied out has "an effective range" of 27-300).

 

[JerryPH]

No, a DX lens has still got to be multiplied out just as a traditional lens would. (ie an 18-200 DX Nikkor multiplied out has "an effective range" of 27-300).

Effective range as compared to a 35mm sensor, fine, but both the prime lenses being discussed (24mm and 28mm) are FX lenses from what I see, so they are not going to be wider than 24 or 28mm, on a crop sensor, they will be equivalent to (whatever mm X 1.5 on a D80) not less.

Maybe because I've again not slept since yesterday I could be screwy, but thats the way I am seeing it.

 

[JerryPH]

So I'm taking a look at both the zoom lenses you both have recommended to me. I mean I've always been under the assumption that Nikon glass are better than aftermarket and prime lenses always have better quality results than zoom lenses, but since both zoom lenses appeared to have performed better than both the Nikon lenses, are these statements misleading?

There is no hard fast rule. Most of the time the primes win, but not always. The same concept is valid for OEM vs 3rd party lenses. I always say to do the research and find out what is happening specifically with the lenses you want.

Example, in the Nikon world, there is NOTHING, no competition anywhere for the Nikkor 85mm F/1.4, even though it is a 1980's lens. That cannot be said of the 17-55 range class where the Sigma beats all. It is so good, that yes, in this case, it even beats 2 older style primes quite handily.