35mm or 24mm on Full Frame

If you could only have one prime on full frame which would it be.

  • 35mm f/1.4

    Votes: 53 55.2%
  • 24mm f/1.4

    Votes: 43 44.8%

  • Total voters
    96
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
633
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.
 
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
633
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.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
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.

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.
 
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
633
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.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
1,905
Location
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
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
508
Location
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:
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
227
Location
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.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
249
Location
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.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,722
Location
Banff National Park, Alberta
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.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
14
Location
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:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

DSC_5168 by everett_c, on Flickr

At f/11:

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.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
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.
 
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
633
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
584
Location
Mississauga, Canada
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!
 
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
633
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!
Good point - and if I got the 24mm I would get the 50mm 1.8 AFS for this reason.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
584
Location
Mississauga, Canada
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!
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom