24mm Dilemma


shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#1
I am moving to FX while most likely will be keeping DX.

For FX, I have 50mm, 85mm, 70-200mm.
For DX, I have 11-16mm, 17-55mm, 18-200mm.

Do I need 24mm for FX? Initially, I was thinking of 14-24mm, and 24-70mm.
Not so keen on 24-70mm or 3rd party until when a VR replacement is available (if any), so was considering the 24mm prime.

I shoot a lot of scenery and some events, so I used the 13-16mm end of my 11-16mm and 17-35mm of my 17-55mm on DX quite a lot. As such, I thought of 14-24mm. Problem is if I do get either 14-24, 24 or 24-70, the 24mm prime is really overlapped so there is no justification for the 24mm prime unless I need f/1.4. If I do get the 24mm prime, then do I need the 14-24 or 24-70?

To top it off, I have other choices now: 24-120mm, 16-35mm, 28-300mm and the new 35mm. VR above 24mm is important to me, unless it's a prime.

?!?!?!? Or I just let my DX cover the low end and not get any lens.

I thought of moving out of DX completely but need it as a secondary backup for events. So it's the 14-70mm of the gap in FX that I need to fill, good thing it is not urgently, so I still have time to plan. I don't have much time to change lens during events. What would be your advice? I know everyone are unique and hence there will be varied opinions but I do respect them all and would like to hear them out. So do share. Thanks.
 

surrephoto

Senior Member
Jan 14, 2009
3,420
3
38
27
Chinatown
www.surrephoto.com
#2
I think this is very valid with regards to the overlap of 14-24, 24 1.4 & 24-70.

Depends on your style really, if you shoot alot of weddings, go ahead and get the 24 f1.4. To me, 24 still looks very flat at f2.8, at least a f2.0 will help lots to bring in depth.

14-24 is a stellar choice (if not the best choice), but when you think about the overlap with so many other lens, can't help to be slightly irritated.
 

Benji77

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2006
1,775
0
36
www.benji77.multiply.com - http
#3
I shared the same thoughts as you about 10 months ago. I dont know if this will help or confuse you further, but here goes.....

The original plan was to add a D3 to my existing set up of a D200. This is so that I can shoot with 2 bodies - D3 + 20,50,85,180mm and the D200 12-24 + 35mm.

This would give me my personal favourites of sufficient wide, with a mid-tele set up.
However, I ended up with this -

D3 + 14-24, 35, 50, 85. Why?

Because once you look through the 14-24, the DX just doesn't cut it anymore. This lens is in a league of its own.

Before I took the $2,700 plunge, the other lenses like the 24,28,20 were in contention. I already had the 20. Which I sold to fund the 14-24. I have never looked back.

If I were in your shoes, I would sell the entire DX collection, get the 14-24 + D700 (your back up). The noise, the controls & various other subtle settings in the D700 & D3 is worth the break up between you and your DX (Sorry, I dont mean to be rude here).
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#4
No worries you are not being rude, just frank and that's good for me. A full FX is of course in the pipeline but I have to start getting some paid jobs first. I am looking at D3S or D800 (whatever the future is) as the next step next year. Just that I can't do the switch at once now. So will do it phases. Get rid of DX lens that I seldom use first and slowly add FX lens. If I add the 14-24, I will have to get rid of my 11-16. I am not sure if I need f/1.4 for 24mm now. Maybe I will rent both lens and try it out.

I shared the same thoughts as you about 10 months ago. I dont know if this will help or confuse you further, but here goes.....

The original plan was to add a D3 to my existing set up of a D200. This is so that I can shoot with 2 bodies - D3 + 20,50,85,180mm and the D200 12-24 + 35mm.

This would give me my personal favourites of sufficient wide, with a mid-tele set up.
However, I ended up with this -

D3 + 14-24, 35, 50, 85. Why?

Because once you look through the 14-24, the DX just doesn't cut it anymore. This lens is in a league of its own.

Before I took the $2,700 plunge, the other lenses like the 24,28,20 were in contention. I already had the 20. Which I sold to fund the 14-24. I have never looked back.

If I were in your shoes, I would sell the entire DX collection, get the 14-24 + D700 (your back up). The noise, the controls & various other subtle settings in the D700 & D3 is worth the break up between you and your DX (Sorry, I dont mean to be rude here).
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#5
If u do not need any ultrawide options, the 24mm f1.4 is a great choice, and the shallower dof can come handy. I love walking ard with just a 241.4, light on my neck during travels.

Ryan
 

Benji77

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2006
1,775
0
36
www.benji77.multiply.com - http
#6
If you are into landscapes, the 14-24 sucks you in. The only drawback is the lack of filters.



This should have been done at 14mm, F8 (I think). I like how the 'depth' of the shot brings you in. This stucture (sorry I forgot whats it called, but its used to transport water to/from the city of Sergovia, Spain) is huge. I only managed to fit them all in with my 14-24mm, else the 35 wont cut it.

I'd say the 24 (1.4) would be more ideal for ambient light photography, high ISO's, and interesting DOF to create dimensions/artistic kinda frames. The 14-24 is the kind of beast that grabs you by the collar, and makes you take in the photograph bit by bit.
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#7
If you are into landscapes, the 14-24 sucks you in. The only drawback is the lack of filters.

This should have been done at 14mm, F8 (I think). I like how the 'depth' of the shot brings you in. This stucture (sorry I forgot whats it called, but its used to transport water to/from the city of Sergovia, Spain) is huge. I only managed to fit them all in with my 14-24mm, else the 35 wont cut it.

I'd say the 24 (1.4) would be more ideal for ambient light photography, high ISO's, and interesting DOF to create dimensions/artistic kinda frames. The 14-24 is the kind of beast that grabs you by the collar, and makes you take in the photograph bit by bit.
Thanks Benji77. It's called aqueduct, I think. I heard all about the 14-24. Most likely will rent one to try out first. I have not used 14-16mm before, my 11-16 on DX is about 17 to 24. But usually below 24, there is too much distortion to my liking. But I like your photo. It doesn't look that distorted.
 

Benji77

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2006
1,775
0
36
www.benji77.multiply.com - http
#8
Oh yes, I should explain why I found it difficult to shoot with both a D3 (FF) & D200 (DX) side by side. I dont know if other users had the same findings and experiences as me, but I found it tricky and difficult to Post Process shots from different cameras.

It was difficult to achieve similar exposures for both cameras, especially in dim lighting.

The resolution and noise control of the D3 is....amazing. While the D200 can operate at ISO 800, I find it hard to achieve consistent exposures (flash or not) together with the D3. For example, I could be operating the D3 in ISO 3200, but the D200 could not keep up. I'd have to compensate with Flash + D200 (and or +) wider aperture.

This is the main reason my D200 is now seeing less light, so to speak.
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#11
I know. Now for me the question is do I need f/1.4? Is f/4.0 enough with a D700?
I just came back from an event shoot, something like stage in a club. Can't use flash. And f/1.4 is useful but tricky cos the area of focus can be quite small.
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#12
Hi, I'm experiencing the same as you now. Basically the f1.4 can offer the shallow depth of field(DOF) and low light shooting control which other wide angle lenses like the 14-24mm, 16-35mm and 11-16mm can't. The only drawback is the price for a new piece of 24mm f1.4G is not cheap and the 2nd hand market is very illiquid.
Btw, I can't find a thread specially for 24mm 1.4G here. Anyone has this lens would like to start and post some photos for reference?
 

vaxvms

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2005
679
0
16
BEHIND YOU!!!!!!
#14
and not only DOF, is also ability to focus fast at nite
tat why journalist prefer F1.4 and 24F1.4 on FF is GREAT ......
 

Benedict

New Member
Jan 18, 2010
62
0
0
#17
The pictures look great!
Compared to the upcoming 35mm f1.4G, which one would you buy?
not sure, i like the 24, but depends on what kinda pics you want. You really need to get close to the subject (if your taking portraits) otherwise, they just get 'lost' in the pic IMO.

Im in a dilemma myself, I want the 16-35 and 24-120 (maybe) and that means I got 24mm covered in excess!
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#18
I see. If you want to sell your 24mm f1.4G, please let me know :bsmilie:
Its 2nd hand market is very illiquid now.

not sure, i like the 24, but depends on what kinda pics you want. You really need to get close to the subject (if your taking portraits) otherwise, they just get 'lost' in the pic IMO.

Im in a dilemma myself, I want the 16-35 and 24-120 (maybe) and that means I got 24mm covered in excess!
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#19
I tried 11-16 on D700 too. Am quite surprised that even in FX mode, the image is decent, the edges are a bit soft though.
 

vaxvms

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2005
679
0
16
BEHIND YOU!!!!!!
#20
I see. If you want to sell your 24mm f1.4G, please let me know :bsmilie:
Its 2nd hand market is very illiquid now.
bcos not many hobbyist wanna get this trinity prime compare to versatile 17-35 or 24-70, professional buy liao will likely keep;p
 

Top Bottom