20mm vs 24mm–>Does 4mm make a difference? |
Page aneii> |
| Author |
|
|
jedidentite Senior Member Joined: 16 September 2008 |
 Post Options  Quote  Reply Topic: 20mm vs 24mm–>Does 4mm make a difference? Posted: 26 October 2009 at 07:02 |
|
Which would one rather prefer to shoot landscapes with? A 20mm f2.8 prime or the 24mm end of the 24-lxx zeiss? Will the 4mm give me a more “pleasing” angle of perspective for landscapes or does the sharpness/color of the zeiss be more “pleasing”? Edited by jedidentite – 26 October 2009 at 07:xvi
|
|
|
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DavidB Senior Member Joined: 26 March 2007 |
Mail Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 October 2009 at 07:15 |
|
In practice the difference between 20 and 24 is quite pronounced (there is a 20% variation). The 24 is a lot easier to utilize, keeping more of a relationship between the foreground and background. Edit: I area I accept found the 20 to be useful for is in landscape/seascape piece of work for an almost panoramic effect, where foreground elements are non there or cropped out, using the central part of the image for the horizon (to minimize barrel distortion/CA). Here are a couple of older film examples.
Edited by DavidB – 26 Oct 2009 at 07:56
|
|
|
davidbannister.zenfolio.com a900, a77, RX100 III, sixteen-fifty ii.8, xx ii.eight, 24 2.8, 28-135, l 1.7, 100 2.8M, 200 two.8G, 1.4 & 2x TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wētāpunga Senior Member Joined: 02 September 2007 |
Mail service Options Quote RespondPosted: 26 Oct 2009 at 07:xviii |
|
I adopt 24mm (primes) typically considering the distortion is typically better controlled than for 20mm lenses. I besides experience- and this is subjective- that the image looks as if information technology has a better depth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jedidentite Senior Member Joined: 16 September 2008 |
Post Options Quote AnswerPosted: 26 October 2009 at 07:32 |
|
Hmmm…I like where this thread is going–>Staying with what I accept and not picking up the 20 prime.
|
|
|
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
jerome Senior Member Joined: 03 June 2009 |
Postal service Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 October 2009 at 07:52 |
|
I am not really certain that ultra-wide angles are very adapted to landscape, and oftentimes you tin emulate them with panorama software in that case… However, the 20mm prime is a corking lens, with much better corner sharpness than the zooms and niggling distortion. I posted comparison samples with the CZ16-35 (not the 24-seventy, unfortunately, I exercise not have that lens) here: http://lookonthesides.blogspot.com/2009/10/20mm-three-minolta-cz-and-sigma-at-f80-or.html and of course you have Kurt Munger review at that place: http://kurtmunger.com/sony_20mm_f_2_8_reviewid257.html. Edited by jerome – 26 October 2009 at 08:fifty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vancouver Senior Member Joined: 22 January 2009 |
Postal service Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 October 2009 at 08:02 |
|
I d also like to contribute to this thread. I have the Min 24 two.8 and I am curiously want to see if upgrading to 20mm is worth doing. the 20mm is actually quite an upgrade in toll.
|
|
|
A700+VG/A300+VG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
utcreeper Senior Member Joined: 22 October 2008 |
Mail Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 Oct 2009 at 09:00 |
|
Funny, I was just contemplating a Sig 20/1.8 vs. 24/one.8 .. but for a detail purpose, where I might need every bit much bending equally possible, so I accept to determine for myself. But I like hearing other opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
polyglot Senior Member Joined: 25 June 2007 |
Post Options Quote RespondPosted: 26 October 2009 at 09:00 |
|
I have them both and use them both (and the 28/2). They’re all peachy lenses in their own special ways Yep, the field of view is noticeably different, though I would like the 20 to be wider. Which ane is better for you depends on what and how y’all like to shoot. If there were a great 16mm rectilinear prime for Minolta and I shot only APS-C, I’d probably get that instead of the xx as I find 24mm on 135 to be awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriel Senior Fellow member Joined: 05 December 2006 |
Post Options Quote AnswerPosted: 26 October 2009 at 09:24 |
|
If you just want to cheque the departure regarding field of view, at that place is a simple solution: grab a kit lens and check field of view using it. Then yous’ll know if the divergence is significant enough for yous earlier buying a prime number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pegelli Admin Group Joined: 02 June 2007 |
Post Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 Oct 2009 at 10:07 |
|
 Gabriel wrote: If you only want to check the difference regarding field of view, there is a simple solution: grab a kit lens and check field of view using it. And then y’all’ll know if the difference is significant enough for yous before buying a prime number. Don’t know for sure, only the kit lens might vignette a bit on the FF camera of the OP. This might be a skillful tool on the Tamron website to see how much difference four mm makes at this WA.
|
|
|
You lot can encounter the April Foolishness 2022 exhibition here Another peachy show of the talent nosotros have on Dyxum
|
|
|
|
|
|
psyblue Newbie Joined: 01 April 2009 |
Post Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 October 2009 at 12:09 |
|
I think that 4mm divergence is significant at wide angle. 24-70mm could be more useful, but a portable,lilliputian fantastic 20mm prime should be in the case purse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
groovyone Senior Member Joined: 27 November 2006 |
Mail Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 October 2009 at fourteen:18 |
|
On my A900, I am very happy at 24mm. I have the sixteen-35Z but rarely use it. I even picked up a 24mm prime over the 20mm for days I want to go light weight.
|
|
|
A99|A900|A100IR|A7|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alpha_in_exile Senior Member Joined: 26 September 2007 |
Postal service Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 October 2009 at 15:58 |
|
I agree with chthoniid and groovyone about existence happy with 24mm on FF (picture, in my case). Anything wider gets actually distorted, simply that distortion tin can be useful in some cases — depends on how y’all shoot. Still, I personally don’t have much utilize for annihilation wider than 24mm (or 16mm on APS-C) — For $200.00 Min AF 24/2.viii is quite good, not as sharp, I’m sure, as the CZ24-70 in the heart, just I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the lens, as far as corner sharpness on APS-C. I discussed the lens with a couple of A900 owners who take it, and they, too, seemed pleased with its functioning, then it might be something for you lot to consider, if in fact you’d like a lighter alternative to the CZ. (also, the colors out-of-camera will be different, which may or may non be to your liking) The old Min Doctor 24/2.eight, though, now that’s a great 24mm lens, and I’d love someday to own the T/S version.
|
|
|
— Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrfarrar Senior Member Joined: 28 August 2005 |
Mail service Options Quote ReplyPosted: 26 October 2009 at 16:56 |
|
I personally don’t find a huge deviation between 20 and 24. I do prefer wide though and I find myself using the xx more than the 24.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Search
| Forum Spring |
Forum Permissions You |
This page was generated in 0.064 seconds.
Dyxum.com – Home of the alpha system lensman
In retentivity of Cameron Hill – brettania
Feel free to contact us if needed.
Source: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/20mm-vs-24mmdoes-4mm-make-a-difference_topic54193.html
