35mm or 24mm on Full Frame

[Mad Hatter]

Having tons of elements in a photo doesn't make it more intersting though, even if it's tempting to cram it all in. :wink:


On a sidenote, I'll vote for 35mm having just bought one today.

WA isn't about 'cramming it all in'. It's about getting close, getting everything in focus and using several different elements to create a pleasing composition. It's about presenting the viewer with a unique perspective only possible with the deep depth of field and different perspectives not usually seen. Some have no problems seeing like this, others do not. From the start I've always been able to integrate two or more elements in a wide angle composition, long before I had read on the internet that it was supposed to be difficult. I don't think it's inherently difficult, I just think everyone sees things differently.

Typically speaking if you're trying to 'get it all in' then you're better served walking back a few steps and using a 50mm lens. However if you're only going to carry one lens often times that's not possible, that's why I suggested to use the wider lens.

 

[basharar]

very well said, i am voting for the 24 now!

WA isn't about 'cramming it all in'. It's about getting close, getting everything in focus and using several different elements to create a pleasing composition. It's about presenting the viewer with a unique perspective only possible with the deep depth of field and different perspectives not usually seen. Some have no problems seeing like this, others do not. From the start I've always been able to integrate two or more elements in a wide angle composition, long before I had read on the internet that it was supposed to be difficult. I don't think it's inherently difficult, I just think everyone sees things differently.

Typically speaking if you're trying to 'get it all in' then you're better served walking back a few steps and using a 50mm lens. However if you're only going to carry one lens often times that's not possible, that's why I suggested to use the wider lens.

 

[Julien]

WA isn't about 'cramming it all in'. It's about getting close, getting everything in focus and using several different elements to create a pleasing composition. It's about presenting the viewer with a unique perspective only possible with the deep depth of field and different perspectives not usually seen. Some have no problems seeing like this, others do not. From the start I've always been able to integrate two or more elements in a wide angle composition, long before I had read on the internet that it was supposed to be difficult. I don't think it's inherently difficult, I just think everyone sees things differently.

Typically speaking if you're trying to 'get it all in' then you're better served walking back a few steps and using a 50mm lens. However if you're only going to carry one lens often times that's not possible, that's why I suggested to use the wider lens.

Believe me, I get in close. :wink:

 

[davewolfs]

Having had both for a few days now here is my vote. The 24 is unique and is capable of producing dramatic images that would not be possible with the 35. You need to get in extremely close with the 24, but the results are simply incredible.

On the other hand, the 35 length on fx is simply gold and the 35 lens is probably one of the best that I have ever used. I've realized that comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges, they are both so completely different and I will likely keep both. The reality though is that if I could only keep one it would be the 35 even though some of my best images so far have come from the 24