20mm vs 24mm
- Thread starter GTP
- Start date
GTP,
About a year ago, I was in that same boat. I have a Nikon 24mm f/2.0 AIS and wanted to go wider. I was looking into the 20mm, but with a price of around $300-$500, I decided to go higher. So I bought the 17-35mm f/2.8. It gives me a nice wide angle zoom range and it's fairly fast. I compared it to my 24mm and it's as sharp. But it's a bit slower since my 24m is f/2.0. But getting to 17mm is very nice.
Going for $900 used or $1700 new makes it a pricey lens. But it's worth it. Carrying this around is easier than carrying two wide primes. It also works great on my DSLR, and it's full frame, not a DX lens. Oh, and at 17mm, that's wider than the stock EX1 lens at it's widest.
About a year ago, I was in that same boat. I have a Nikon 24mm f/2.0 AIS and wanted to go wider. I was looking into the 20mm, but with a price of around $300-$500, I decided to go higher. So I bought the 17-35mm f/2.8. It gives me a nice wide angle zoom range and it's fairly fast. I compared it to my 24mm and it's as sharp. But it's a bit slower since my 24m is f/2.0. But getting to 17mm is very nice.
Going for $900 used or $1700 new makes it a pricey lens. But it's worth it. Carrying this around is easier than carrying two wide primes. It also works great on my DSLR, and it's full frame, not a DX lens. Oh, and at 17mm, that's wider than the stock EX1 lens at it's widest.
robmneilson
Veteran
I've got an extra 20mm lens if you'd want it. It's 3.5, but does a fine job...
Charles Lowthian
Well-known member
Every mm counts when you get to the wide fields.
20mm is more a 'wide' angle than 24mm.
If i had to downsize my primes, I would keep 20mm, 35mm, 85mm, 200mm.
But this is subject to personal tastes.
20mm is more a 'wide' angle than 24mm.
If i had to downsize my primes, I would keep 20mm, 35mm, 85mm, 200mm.
But this is subject to personal tastes.