Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,674   Online: 893
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59
  1. #11
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,791
    Images
    1
    I had the same trouble on the wide-angle side.
    So, I got 24, then 20, then 35. Now, I use all three, depending on what I shoot, and never missed the 28.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    The obvious advantage to using prime lenses are weight and speed (compared to zooms) and therefore i recommend that you consider those factors when making your choice. If the lens is not significantly smaller or faster than what you have now, it is not worth the bother. All that being said, I say go for the 24 - f/2.8 or faster. 35 and 28 are much too close to the 50 for my taste. And everyone has to have a fast fifty, right?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,069
    I think I'm going to get 24mm first, then if/when I feel the need, add 35mm.

    One last Q... looking at some of the reviews on Internet, some of them talks about focus shift when stopping down. Some of them also talks about barrel distortion. But... thinking these lens have existed since long before Internet was so popular, and everyone reviewing everything, and I haven't heard anyone actually complain outside of these reviews, these aren't really issues one needs to worry about, is it? (and please keep in mind, I will be using these lens on film and digital bodies)
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  4. #14
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,276
    Images
    73
    The Sonnar design exhibits focus shift but if you are using a 24mm lens stopped down to at least f8 I wouldn't worry about it. If you are going for the wide-open look then you don't have to worry about it anyway. I wouldn't sweat it.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  5. #15
    Erik Petersson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    643
    Images
    8
    24 and 50, Nikkors in my case. I also have 20, 28 and 35, but rarely use them although I really love the perspective of a 35. For some reason 28 does not suit me, but it is really hard to say why. The 20 is more extreme and I use it only for special applications.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    I have 17, 24, 28, 35, 50, and 55 millimeter lenses in the range you are talking about. While 35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, and mine (pre-AI Nikkor f/2) has seen a great deal of use, it has mostly been when using only one body, not as a companion to another body/lens. My most commonly used pair of lenses outdoors in decent light are the 50mm f/1.4 (Canon FD S.S.C. or pre-AI Nikkor) and the 28mm f/2 (Canon FDn). These two (plus my pre-AI Nikkor 135mm) are my "go-to" lenses when shooting 35mm film. In foul light, I favor the 55mm f/1.2 over the f/1.4, just for its extra 1/2 stop. It also makes for some very beautiful out of focus areas.

    My least used lens is the 17mm. It came in a lot with a bunch of other FD stuff. I had wanted it for a long time, and it was in near-perfect shape (at least it was when I got it). However, I just find super wides (which I consider to start at 24mm) to be useful in very few of the situations in which I shoot. They are hard to compose with, prone to flare, hard to filter, and can easily tend to make shots too "busy" for what I like. I also don't find this particular lens to be all that mind blowing in terms of technical image qualities.

    I picked up my 24mm f/2.8 (pre-AI Nikkor) just because it was super cheap ($40), super mint, and every now and then my 28mm is not quite wide enough. It is too wide, reduces magnification too much, and distorts too much for general use in what I shoot. I view it and anything wider as special purpose lenses. I find it strange that 24mm, as opposed to 28mm, seems to have become the default wide angle in "The Zoom Age." However, it has its occasional uses, and it is such a small and light lens that it is easy enough to keep in the hard case on a trip without sacrificing anything, so I figured what the hey.

    For longer lenses, I generally jump straight from 50/55 to 135, though I do like 85s and 100/105s.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 05-27-2010 at 06:08 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #17
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,681
    Images
    15
    A 24mm is hard to beat; I've used one as a prime lens for more than 15 years now. Less popular is a lens going down to 17mm (or less) — this will require careful choice and composition given the extreme depth and ultra wide view.

    Adding a 35mm or even a 50mm lens to your kit will set you up for a long time.

    "Focus shift when stopping down"!? Never heard of it. Distortion can be common ultra-wide to normal zooms, less so in primes and almost undetectable in highly corrected (APO/ASPH) optics. I can remember using some early OM Zuiko and Tamron lenses in the early 1980s that had patently terrible distortion (pincushion, barrel, chromatic... just about every one of the Five Aberrations of Seidel!).
    “The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
    Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
    the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see."
    ~Edward Weston, 1922.

  8. #18
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,089
    Images
    159
    i really like the combination of a 24mm and a 50mm.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    I use 35mm and 85mm (I have all the rest too)

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by jpberger View Post
    -- If you've already got a 50 I'd concur with the above suggestion of 24mm. It gives a more dramatic perspective expansion effect than a 28 mm and is wide enough that it's really easy to set up leading lines that take the eye right into the picture, yet it isn't as hard to handle as a 21mm or wider lens which really demands careful positioning to avoid converging parallel lines etc. It's also the widest you can get for shooting people without doing weird things to their heads if they end up at the edge of the frame. A 24 35 50 combo is overkill-- good to own, but I'd never take all three of those out with me unless I wanted to spend all my time dickering about which lens to use rather than shoot. Id go 24+50 or 35, but that's just me.
    Not just you. That's exactly how I'd describe it myself. The 24 and 50 are 2/3 of my standard kit. I have a 28 and a 35 too, but the 24 sees the most use. It's wide enough to be dramatic, and not so wide that it's hard to use. I usually kick in a fast 85 or 105 mm lens if I need a little extra reach. Anything longer than that is petty useless for hand held photography under anything less than perfect conditions, and doesn't get much use.
    Frank Schifano

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin