What's new

Well Hello 24mm...

PhotoWrangler

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
1,702
Reaction score
366
Location
Houston MetroMess, Texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
My it's been a while since we've seen each other!!!


I've always kept full frame lenses because a) I knew I'd one day end up with an FX camera, and b) I used me lenses on both my digital gear and 35mm gear.

After YEARS of looking at 24mm on a crop body, it's quite nice to finally get the full SPAN of the view!
 
Yeah, 24mm on FF or FX is nice....it's wide without being so wide that everything falls off to nothingness in size, which makes 24mm a pretty easy wide-angle length to learn to use.
 
I was going to sell this Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM and grab a 50mm 1.4, but man this lens SINGS in this FX body. I think I might just keep it after all.

i am loving these wide test shots.
 
Yes, a 24mm to 70mm zoom is REALLY handy....you get a wide 24; a moderate wide at 28mm; a semi-wide at 35mm; a semi-normal in the 40 to 45mm range; normal at 50mm; and the 70mm end is a short telephoto lens. In primes, 24/28/35 are ALL VERY different lengths. At 24mm, people and objects placed near the edges of the frame tend to distort, and "tip over a bit", whereas at 28mm, that distorting tendency is very much less significant, which means that 28mm and longer is more suited to a more "naturalistic" rendering than is 24mm.

35mm focal length on full-frame is very useful; Not much distorting of shapes on corner- and edge objects or people, and it also covers about one foot horizontally for each foot back from the subject, which means 35mm is very easy to work with indoors, in "social photo" situations. It might surprise some people, but noted portrait/boudoir shooter Sue Bryce uses here Canon 35mm f/1.4 as her MAIN LENS for portraiture...I saw her state that on Creativelive.com. I found it interesting that she also very frequently has to warp fat-looking upper arms on her female subjects...again...35mm DOES produce some distorting in apparent size of the near and the far...the near arm on a person shot half-body with a 35mm lens WILL BE DISTORTED to a noticeable degree, compared against their head and far arm's size.

I think the rendering of the 45 to 60mm focal lengths are interesting for "street" and "scenic" shots. 50mm is a normal, right? Well, a 58mm lens is a MUCH more narrow-angle lens, one that focuses the view, narrows the view, forces the view to be applied much more carefully than with 50mm.
 
I've got a Nikkor 24 2.8 Ais that I bought new. For the last 4 or 5 years it has mainly seen use on my D200- it makes a real nice 35mm equivalent. Stopped down to f4 or 5.6 it is wonderfully sharp. Last weekend I took it out and threw it on my new D600, and yeah, fell in love with it all over again. I just have to keep in mind my angles, and it's easy to use.

Both of these are from that day: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3760/10224875794_38ce10babb_z.jpg and http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3700/10044932466_991ae4223f_z.jpg . Shot using the in-camera B&W with red filter.
 
Nice Dave!


I'm also noticing that the DOF on this lens seems shallower at 2.8. Is it because there's more blur towards the edges that are now in the frame, compared to only the center circle that you see when it's used on a crop body?
 
Nice Dave!


I'm also noticing that the DOF on this lens seems shallower at 2.8. Is it because there's more blur towards the edges that are now in the frame, compared to only the center circle that you see when it's used on a crop body?

Thank you. I would guess that is the reason, hadn't really thought about it. I've just been having so much fun with the camera.
 
24mm is SO nice!!

$ImageUploadedByTapatalk1381752041.376548.webp
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom