Wide angle primes: Ef 24mm 2.8 or Ef 35mm 2.0?

[Mystix]

Thinking of getting a wide angle prime.
Researched on these 2 and found that they are both very capable and cost effective.
Will be using it on a full frame, mainly for architecture and the occasional group shots.
Which one do u guys suggest?

[foreverlovex]

35mm may not be wide enough.

[Kit]

You are getting lenses for very different applications and it really depends on the situation you are given. The 24mm will give you the extra coverage you'll most probably need for buildings but you have to deal with the perspective distortion for group shots. You'll need to exercise extreme care for the composition to overcome this problem.

The 35mm might not be able to satisfy your needs for buildings, especially the interiors. Its a hard choice because its hardly wide enough for general architectural shots and not long enough to isolate details in buildings.

If you have a flash, then I'd suggest you go for the 17-40 f/4. That could actually be cheaper then the 2 primes.

[F34r]

i used to use the 24mm f2.8, and it is a beautiful lens. it's an inexpensive lens as well, good colors and sharp.

[ditikolon]

I have the 24mm and it's my walk around lens. Gives me a FOV of about 38mm on my 400D. Great colour and contrast, great sharpness. Distortion is a non-issue for me. It's not wide enough for group shots on a 1.6x DSLR though. Depends on how many people you're shooting



You can see some more here:
http://flickr.com/photos/dirtycolon/tags/ef24mmf28/

[pixie]

I am using 35 but on a 1.6X crop 450D. It is not wide enough for architecture building, and group shots. For my body, I preferred a 10-22, or the low of my kit at 18. Since yours is a ff, 24 shld be better than a 35. I usu ended up practically kissing the ground =(

[denniskee]

Originally Posted by pixie I am using 35 but on a 1.6X crop 450D. It is not wide enough for architecture building, and group shots. For my body, I preferred a 10-22, or the low of my kit at 18. Since yours is a ff, 24 shld be better than a 35. I usu ended up practically kissing the ground =(

i do agree with kit for the 17-40mm f4, or you can get a good condition 17-35mm f2.8 which is around the seem $$.

[marctheworld]

I probably will go with zoom lens 17-40 or 10-22 for even wider shot. 10-22 is good for architecture

[Mystix]

Originally Posted by denniskee i do agree with kit for the 17-40mm f4, or you can get a good condition 17-35mm f2.8 which is around the seem $$.

Thanks for all the replies.
I've looked up on the 17-40 lens and I get the feeling that it's sort of over rated, although no doubt given it's range it's a useful lens.
I've eliminated the 35mm from my choice... guess it's between the 24mm and 17-40.

[Kit]

Do not get a lens if its over-rated.
Do not get a lens if its under-rated.
Do get a lens if you need it.

[antacid]

i have both the 24/2.8 and the 35/2 on a full-frame camera. the 35/2 is like my kit lens that goes out each time i take the camera. i also have the 17-40 which doesnt see much use.

the main reason is that the 35/2 is just nice for dim restaurants, and wide enough for those across-the-table shots of friends. the short MFD is also great for food shots before you eat!

here are a few examples of the 35/2 on a full frame body.




the 24/2.8 just sits there unused these days. it's quite sad. i initially bought it for use with my 1.6x camera, but it didnt turn out to be very useful. if you're interested in picking up a good condition lens, drop me a PM!

and yes, i have to agree that even though i may like it very much, it may not suit your purposes. like kit said, get a lens for what you need it for, not because someone said its good! and i wouldnt really call the 35/2 a WA prime..haha. more like a standard focal length. if you have a compact camera, that's probably the same focal length you'll get, so you'll be able to quickly see if it suits your shooting needs.

[Mystix]

Originally Posted by antacid i have both the 24/2.8 and the 35/2 on a full-frame camera. the 35/2 is like my kit lens that goes out each time i take the camera. i also have the 17-40 which doesnt see much use. the main reason is that the 35/2 is just nice for dim restaurants, and wide enough for those across-the-table shots of friends. the short MFD is also great for food shots before you eat! the 24/2.8 just sits there unused these days. it's quite sad. i initially bought it for use with my 1.6x camera, but it didnt turn out to be very useful. if you're interested in picking up a good condition lens, drop me a PM! and yes, i have to agree that even though i may like it very much, it may not suit your purposes. like kit said, get a lens for what you need it for, not because someone said its good! and i wouldnt really call the 35/2 a WA prime..haha. more like a standard focal length. if you have a compact camera, that's probably the same focal length you'll get, so you'll be able to quickly see if it suits your shooting needs.

Thanks for the comment. I've not thought about the situation in restaurants before, but now that you've mentioned it, I can see a definite use there. Now I have to think again...

Btw, I heard that its AF is quite loud, will it affect the other customers in the restaurant?

[F34r]

nice white balance. how did you manage that indoor lighting? grey card?

[antacid]

Nope, the AF volume is pretty ok I think. Never really bothered much about it... Probably comparable to the 50/1.8?

F34r > I shot in RAW and did white balance corrections during post-processing. glad you liked it. i just did it based on eye-balling off a non-calibrated monitor, so its quite hit-and-miss..haha

[toulcaz31]

Originally Posted by Mystix Thinking of getting a wide angle prime. Researched on these 2 and found that they are both very capable and cost effective. Will be using it on a full frame, mainly for architecture and the occasional group shots. Which one do u guys suggest?

Have you considered waiting for the new Zeiss ZE Distagon 21mm?

It should come in first semester 09.