Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

  1. #21

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    What you need depends on your style of shooting, which we do not know. A good way to tell what you need is to use a zoom lens that covers both focal lengths, then see which focal length you use more. Primes are also not for everyone, I personally prefer zooms (and the 24-70 is very good already, I don't need a 24 or a 35 prime)

  2. #22
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by baggiolee View Post
    i'm sure there are lots of people using it on D90, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 too.

    yes i do agree tat it's abit overkill but it's better than the other way round, but strange enough, i haven't seen anyone say the samething about people using expensive L lens on canon D550D or 60D.
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega23 View Post
    Common guys.. give me a 14-24 f2.8 DX, 24-70 DX and 70-200 VR2 DX pls... It is not overkill but whether you can afford it or not..
    The 14-24 is an excellent lens optimized for UWA work for FX. It comes at premium price, and it is also very heavy of a lens. To use it on DX is to not use it to its full potential, and IMHO, a waste of its capabilities and $$.

    If you have shot full day weddings before you will understand weight can affect your level of fatigue and will in turn affect the quality of your pictures.

    Then again, if anyone have the spare $$ to throw around, and have arms of steel, I would say, sure, go ahead.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 24th February 2011 at 10:38 AM.

  3. #23
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega23 View Post
    Common guys.. give me a 14-24 f2.8 DX, 24-70 DX and 70-200 VR2 DX pls... It is not overkill but whether you can afford it or not..
    Give me those 3 lenses and I will keep the 14-24 for landscape only and sell the other 2 lenses to fund for other more interesting stuff.

  4. #24

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Give me those 3 lenses and I will keep the 14-24 for landscape only and sell the other 2 lenses to fund for other more interesting stuff.
    Better make sure it's a 14-24 equivalent, and not just a smaller 14-24 lens which is also quite useless on DX, considering there are much wider DX lenses already

    So it would be a 9-16 f2.8, 16-50 f2.8, 50-150 f2.8 VR (approx)

  5. #25
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    Better make sure it's a 14-24 equivalent, and not just a smaller 14-24 lens which is also quite useless on DX, considering there are much wider DX lenses already

    So it would be a 9-16 f2.8, 16-50 f2.8, 50-150 f2.8 VR (approx)
    LOL... I can use FX lenses. will fit them onto my P7000

  6. #26

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Just read from Dpreview.com. An interesting comment from a user with experience on both 24mm and 35mm f1.4G:

    "I've got both, and my answer is that they are simply different.

    The 24/1.4G is a bit "bolder", a touch more vibrant, a bit more colorful, while the 35/1.4G is a bit more relaxed, very very smooth, and very unassuming, and very natural. I've used this analogy before, stolen from the audiophile community - the 35/1.4G I see as a lens that neither adds nor subtracts any coloration to or from the scene for the most part, where the 24/1.4G imparts a slight bit of romance and crispness. However, these are subtle, when I say the 24/1.4 is a bit bolder and more vibrant, that does not mean by any stretch that the 35/1.4G is dull or soft. Subtle differences for those who appreciate more than just sharpness in lenses, essentially.

    Love both, if I had to pick one, since the 35/1.4G is a bit more unique (slightly less like the 24/1.4 or 85/1.4G primes), that would be my pick if I couldn't have both, but man, that would be depressing, as the 24 is one special lens, absolutely.

    There is something really appealing to the way the 35/1.4G draws through - it's sharp where it needs to be sharp, has punch and contrast, excellent clarity and purity, but never to the point of overdoing it, and has wonderfully smooth, natural tonal and spatial transitions. It might very well be Nikons best wide angle in some ways, at least of the 50 or so Nikkor lenses I've used since the mid 70's."
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  7. #27

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    The 24 1.4 will bring you joy. The 35 1.4 will bring you happiness. So what do you value more, joy or happiness?

  8. #28

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    The 14-24 is an excellent lens optimized for UWA work for FX. It comes at premium price, and it is also very heavy of a lens. To use it on DX is to not use it to its full potential, and IMHO, a waste of its capabilities and $$.

    If you have shot full day weddings before you will understand weight can affect your level of fatigue and will in turn affect the quality of your pictures.

    Then again, if anyone have the spare $$ to throw around, and have arms of steel, I would say, sure, go ahead.
    i agreed on the UWA part but not for the weight part on the DX, as FX ptgr (D700 or D3s) with 14-24 f2.8 will be alot more heavier. anyway, it's also the reasons why more and more FX ptgr gave up their zoom lens and change to primes instead.

  9. #29

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    The new prime lenses are sharper, more contrasty, better object isolation and better colour rendition. The trade off is fixed focal length.

    Quote Originally Posted by baggiolee View Post
    i agreed on the UWA part but not for the weight part on the DX, as FX ptgr (D700 or D3s) with 14-24 f2.8 will be alot more heavier. anyway, it's also the reasons why more and more FX ptgr gave up their zoom lens and change to primes instead.
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  10. #30

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by kentwong81 View Post
    The new prime lenses are sharper, more contrasty, better object isolation and better colour rendition. The trade off is fixed focal length.
    yap. prime is always the ultimate lens in terms of IQ.

  11. #31
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by baggiolee View Post
    i agreed on the UWA part but not for the weight part on the DX, as FX ptgr (D700 or D3s) with 14-24 f2.8 will be alot more heavier. anyway, it's also the reasons why more and more FX ptgr gave up their zoom lens and change to primes instead.
    Primes has always been highly sought after, not because of weight but IQ.

    That said, 14-24 f2.8 with D3s/D3x/D3/D700 is the ultimate combo for landscape. But most landscape shooters use tripods. There is no viable prime lenses available for FX in the 14-16mm range for landscape shooters. There are some obscure ones like the 13mm and 15mm lenses but those are more collector prized items more than workhorses.

    On wedding photography, I have yet to see anyone use the 14-24/2.8 on a DX to shoot a wedding professionally. You should try it once, and tell us how it feels at the end of the day.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 24th February 2011 at 10:33 PM.

  12. #32

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Primes has always been highly sought after, not because of weight but IQ.

    That said, 14-24 f2.8 with D3s/D3x/D3/D700 is the ultimate combo for landscape. But most landscape shooters use tripods. There is no viable prime lenses available for FX in the 14-16mm range for landscape shooters.
    oh i see...true.

    On wedding photography, I have yet to see anyone use the 14-24/2.8 on a DX to shoot a wedding professionally. You should try it once, and tell us how it feels at the end of the day.
    i thought you are comparing 14-24 on DX and FX bodies? of cuz the weight on either setup can kill a phtgr if he's shooting the whole day with it. i've been carrying the 70-200 f2.8 with my D7000 the whole day many times before, so i know the pain. if not for the side sling strap (instead of neck strap), i could've dead already lol.

  13. #33
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by baggiolee View Post
    i thought you are comparing 14-24 on DX and FX bodies? of cuz the weight on either setup can kill a phtgr if he's shooting the whole day with it. i've been carrying the 70-200 f2.8 with my D7000 the whole day many times before, so i know the pain. if not for the side sling strap (instead of neck strap), i could've dead already lol.
    I wasn't comparing DX with FX bodies. It all started when I said that IMHO the 14-24 is overkill for a DX body.

  14. #34

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    If anyone give me 35/1.4 or/and 24/1.4 or/and 14-24/2.8, I will gladly take them all.

    If in doubt, get both!

  15. #35

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Primes has always been highly sought after, not because of weight but IQ.

    That said, 14-24 f2.8 with D3s/D3x/D3/D700 is the ultimate combo for landscape. But most landscape shooters use tripods. There is no viable prime lenses available for FX in the 14-16mm range for landscape shooters. There are some obscure ones like the 13mm and 15mm lenses but those are more collector prized items more than workhorses.

    On wedding photography, I have yet to see anyone use the 14-24/2.8 on a DX to shoot a wedding professionally. You should try it once, and tell us how it feels at the end of the day.
    There is a 14mm f2.8

  16. #36
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: should i buy 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by wisann View Post
    There is a 14mm f2.8
    Thanks for pointing that out. Didn't know about this...

    But after reading about it, it seems the 14-24 seem to outperform the 14/2.8, and the pricing is not that far apart.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •