1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

35mm or 24mm on Full Frame

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by davewolfs, Jun 8, 2011.

  1. 35mm f/1.4

    53 vote(s)
    55.2%
  2. 24mm f/1.4

    43 vote(s)
    44.8%
  1. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    If you could only have one lens, which would it be?

    Intended usage is for a Euro trip, leave in the car at all times type of lens. Nightlife etc...Nothing specific, but it gets tiring carrying a 24-70 everywhere.

    For Landscape I have a 16-35mm already.
     
  2. Ryan_T

    Ryan_T

    Mar 24, 2011
    Canada
    I'd say the 35mm. 24mm might be too wide to be a singular travel lens.
     
  3. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    Yah what sucks me in with the 24mm is that is that the focal length is very creative, I love wide always have. But not sure how practical it will be for an all out prime. I did own the Zeiss 35/2 a while back and did love it. I ended up getting rid of it because I couldn't deal with my hit rate and manual focus.

    You see a lot of great portraits done with the 24mm but you wonder how close you must be to get those shots, I'm guessing lens touching nose LOL.
     

  4. If your ambition is a lightweight holiday kit, why duplicate focal lengths? Since you're already carrying the 16-35, make your prime a 60/2.8G or an 85/1.4 (D or G). Jmho.
     
  5. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    Don't want to carry the 16-35mm, doesn't have the DoF that I want. I rarely do portraits so I'm not sure how much use I would get out of the 85. I own a 105 and it's collecting DUST! In fact the 105 will be going on sale shortly.
     
  6. mysh

    mysh

    Jul 3, 2010
    USA
    the 24mm its a no brainer for me. I have looked through both threads on here of the 2 lenses and I think the 24mm is just better. Plus I like going wide. 35mm or 24mm you will need to get real close to a person for a portrait so I think this is a non factor
     
  7. gaidin

    gaidin

    508
    Dec 28, 2009
    Australia
    For a Euro holiday I was tempted to lean towards the 24mm so I could fit in some architecture at a squeeze...but I voted for the 35mm to give the option of a little more detail.

    But to be honest I dont travel with primes really...theyre for the other 80% of my photography when I have a good idea of what I'll be shooting when I pack my bag in the morning :wink:
     
  8. jr1966

    jr1966

    124
    Feb 21, 2011
    Guam
    35mm strikes the best balance for me.
     
  9. Jadis

    Jadis

    227
    Apr 30, 2009
    Seattle
    that's a tough one but I voted 24mm because I would want to take in a lot of buildings and environment while in such a nice location as Europe.

    It's true the 35mm length is probably a better general purpose lens but for "Euro vacation" then to me that means a little bit wider.
     
  10. I answered 35mm for your question, then I read what you want to use it for and thought 24mm.
     
  11. eye2i

    eye2i

    249
    Jan 22, 2011
    Virginia
    35 is such an outstanding focal length for FX cameras. I was debating this heavily for the past 48 hours and ultimately I went ahead and purchased the 35 1.4 G instead after renting a 24 1.4 for a week.n24 can be so wide for general use, but then again its just preference.
     
  12. Moony16

    Moony16

    May 7, 2011
    New England
    35mm for me--no doubt.
     
  13. I'd rather have the 24. I like to go wide, and IMHO it's better to be too wide and have to crop than not wide enough and miss what you're trying to capture.

    I guess the 35 will sport a little less DOF though.
     
  14. I'd go with the 24. But I'd also take an 85 1.4 as well. But that's just me.
     
  15. everettc

    everettc

    14
    Feb 21, 2007
    Pleasanton, CA.
    I had the same dilemma so I choose the 24mm. Here are some shots to show the flexibility of this lens:

    At f/1.4:

    5802710053_96c7fabfa1_b.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    DSC_5168 by everett_c, on Flickr

    At f/11:

    5802618505_cfb0ca5ff5_b.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Mt. Diablo by everett_c, on Flickr

    Both of these were taken about a couple of feet from each other.
     
  16. all the people who voted 24mm probably havent shot a 24mm on FX - its wide you know when you need it....If you have to ask then the 35mm is for you. I owned the 24 and loved it. I love the 35 more because I can compose the image in my mind before I even put the camera up to my eye. The 24 is much more difficult to do that and compose properly.

    I rarely have to crop any images I take with the 35mm the composition is always spot on.
     
  17. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
  18. 24mm: if you are travelling Alone and don't need to shoot people travelling with you, 24 is more interesting for the sake of art/photography
    35mm: If you are travelling with family, 35 is great to tell a story!
     
  19. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    Good point - and if I got the 24mm I would get the 50mm 1.8 AFS for this reason.
     
  20. yes! 24+50 is great, BUT the last thing you want to be doing is swapping lenses in europe, your could get mugged by a flying bike out of nowhere anytime...35 is great for street photography and if you need the extra wideness you can always use your legs! a nice running shoes is a must!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.