35mm or 24mm on Full Frame

[davewolfs]

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.

 

[Ryan_T]

I'd say the 35mm. 24mm might be too wide to be a singular travel lens.

 

[davewolfs]

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.

 

[Uncle Frank]

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.

 

[davewolfs]

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.

 

[mysh]

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

 

[gaidin]

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:

 

[jr1966]

35mm strikes the best balance for me.

 

[Jadis]

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.

 

[SUN RA KAT]

I answered 35mm for your question, then I read what you want to use it for and thought 24mm.

 

[eye2i]

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.

 

[Moony16]

35mm for me--no doubt.

 

[Mad Hatter]

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.

 

[BourbonCowboy]

I'd go with the 24. But I'd also take an 85 1.4 as well. But that's just me.

 

[everettc]

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.

 

[Domdog31]

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.

 

[davewolfs]

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:

[URL]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/5802710053_96c7fabfa1_b.jpg[/url]
DSC_5168 by everett_c, on Flickr

At f/11:

[URL]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/5802618505_cfb0ca5ff5_b.jpg[/url]
Mt. Diablo by everett_c, on Flickr

Both of these were taken about a couple of feet from each other.

Bokeh is "dreamy"

 

[basharar]

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!

 

[davewolfs]

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.

 

[basharar]

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!