# 24mm vs 28mm



## Wandering Pugilist

I'm looking to buy some Nikon glass and I have a budget that fits in the range of a 24mm f/2.8D prime lens and the 28mm f/2.8 prime lens. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the only difference between these two lenses is the length (is that the right term?)

I do a lot of work in low-light situations and I don't like flash all that much. I am mainly looking to use this as a portrait lens (I already own the 50mm 1.4) so I'm looking for something that can shoot a bit wider.

I also would like to find a nice prime lens to possibly shoot some landscape shots. Anyone with experience with either lens would be helpful or just advice in general.

Thanks!


----------



## elemental

I was literally comparing the 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8 less than half an hour ago. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much info either, except that the 28mm costs less. Hopefully someone else knows.

If you don't mind, can I add a question? Is the "G" version only differentiated by its compatibility with that matrix metering sensor Nikon has?


----------



## JerryPH

First do a search online for reviews. sometimes the difference between 2 lenses is a lot more than (in this case) 4mm.



Wandering Pugilist said:


> I do a lot of work in low-light situations


Which is cool, I do too.



Wandering Pugilist said:


> and I don't like flash all that much. I am mainly looking to use this as a portrait lens (I already own the 50mm 1.4) so I'm looking for something that can shoot a bit wider.


First off, you are you missing out on INCREDIBLE opportunities by not learning how to control your own light via off camera flash.  You can do things in controlled light that you NEVER will be able to do without it.

Second, wide lenses are TERRIBLE portrait lenses. The best portrait lenses are above 70mm, and are often as high as 200mm (85mm and 105mm are absolutely FANTASTIC for portraits). The reason for this is simple... distortion. EVERY wide angle lens has massive distortion. In terms of your portraits, can you say "chipmunk cheeks"?



Wandering Pugilist said:


> I also would like to find a nice prime lens to possibly shoot some landscape shots. Anyone with experience with either lens would be helpful or just advice in general.


 
Landscapes... wide angle lenses are good and ULTRA wide angle lenses absolutely rule here. In landscapes, you do not care about that wide angle distortion. Since 99% of all landscapes are done in daylight, I would suggest that you look at the Sigma 10-20mm. Awesome lens. It is not fast, but it is incredible:







And if it is dark, the nice thing about landscapes is that they do not move... lol. A tripod and a good location and you can get some really nice shots too:




(click on picture above for larger version)

BTW, to know about each of the individual lenses you asked about, visit HERE.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

JerryPH said:


> First do a search online for reviews. sometimes the difference between 2 lenses is a lot more than (in this case) 4mm.



I did, but all I'm finding is that BOTH purchasers are saying BOTH lenses are awesome and there isn't much on contrasting and comparing the differences. Well, maybe I didn't look hard enough. Any suggestions?



> Which is cool, I do too.


Great. Now we have something in common.



> First off, you are you missing out on INCREDIBLE opportunities by not learning how to control your own light via off camera flash.  You can do things in controlled light that you NEVER will be able to do without it.


I do own a SB-600 and am capable of taking flash portraits. The reason I am trying to get away from flash is because I am trying to do a photo documentary and I feel "flash" makes the photographer less "invisible" and distracts the subject from forgetting that there is a camera in their face. But thanks for making the assumption that I never learned how to control my own light before even asking. :thumbup:



> Second, wide lenses are TERRIBLE portrait lenses. The best portrait lenses are above 70mm, and are often as high as 200mm (85mm and 105mm are absolutely FANTASTIC for portraits). The reason for this is simple... distortion. EVERY wide angle lens has massive distortion. In terms of your portraits, can you say "chipmunk cheeks"?


Great info. I do own a 50mm f1.4 but the subject is always so crammed when I try to take any type of portrait (and yes I know why). I am just tried of backing up (sometimes it is because I don't want to, most times it is because there is not enough room in the place I am shooting). I imagine a 70mm would make that situation worse. Is there anything you can suggest to help remedy this issue?



> Landscapes... wide angle lenses are good and ULTRA wide angle lenses absolutely rule here. In landscapes, you do not care about that wide angle distortion. Since 99% of all landscapes are done in daylight, I would suggest that you look at the Sigma 10-20mm. Awesome lens. It is not fast, but it is incredible:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it is dark, the nice thing about landscapes is that they do not move... lol. A tripod and a good location and you can get some really nice shots too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (click on picture above for larger version)
> 
> BTW, to know about each of the individual lenses you asked about, visit HERE.


Awesome landscape shots. While I know a 24-28 would probably not generate the same quality shots, I was wondering if you thought it would be better to buy a 24-28 prime lens than use the kit lens of 18-55.


----------



## kundalini

You don't state whether your are using a DX or FX body, but have you looked at the 35mm f/2.  I think it makes a good protrait lens if you're going for a bit wider shot with limited space.  Nice build quality, contrast and color rendition.  Very sharp and good for low light.

I'm thinking the 24 or 28mm would give more distortion than desired for portraits..... but not completely sure.  I'm looking at the 20mm or 24mm for landscapes.


----------



## tsaraleksi

I think a 28 is probably a good length on a crop body for doing documentary portrait work. Obviously it's not an ideal length for headshots but for environmental images a wide lens beats a telephoto every time.  The problem is that the closer you get to your subject with a lens, the more distance increases relative to the lens. If you are 15 feet away from someone, a half an inch worth of difference between their eye and the tip of their nose is negligible, but if you are 15 inches from them it becomes a much more exaggerated distance because the nose is relatively much closer to the lens than the eye, making it appear huge. In other contexts you can play with this effect to make interesting images. 

To me, a 24-70 would probably be an ideal lens in this situation-- wide to long, so you can do everything. Assuming that such a lens is out of your price range, I think any of the lenses discussed would be good length wise, but the 28 is probably best.


----------



## LarryD

I will second the distortion issue as you go to a wider angle lens for portraits..

Remember, on a crop body camera, your focal length is 50 to 60% longer than it was on full frame film cameras.

I don't think that you should go shorter than about 35mm so you don't end up with long ears or humped shoulders on your subjects..

The obvious solution for you, in the long run, is to use good glass, but plan on a FF body if this is your passion and you are unable to "back-up".


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

Thanks for the replies!

I am using a Nikon D80. I guess I am trying to "get the best bang for my buck", which I know almost never works out in photography. My biggest concern is the room I have for shooting in a low-light situation (boxing gyms, so as you can imagine, not a whole lot of room). I'm not really looking to do headshots, as my 50mm has worked out, at least to my satisfaction it has. I am rather trying to capture entire subjects and with the 50mm, I have to back up, more than I want to at least.

So on Jerry's advice (Thanks bro), I am reading through many reviews on the net. It looks like I'd get more distortion with the 24 than the 28, but I also like to take landscape and I'm reading a 28 offers less versatility. So, in my situation, should I go for a 28 and save up to buy something SUPER wide angle, or just put in the extra $100 for the 24?


----------



## tsaraleksi

Wide-angle distortion is *less* significant on a crop when looking at a given lens. Perspective distortion is entirely a function of how far away the camera is from the subject. You could shoot a full body image with a wider angle (say, 28-35ish) and you wouldn't see any WA distortion in their facial features, etc. Wide angle is probably perfect for doing documentary shots of boxers-- I'm very jealous, really  

My main concern is that 2.8 won't be fast enough.


----------



## kundalini

LarryD said:


> Remember, on a crop body camera, your focal length is 50 to 60% longer than it was on full frame film cameras.


 Please explain how the *focal length* will be longer on a cropped body(sensor).  This is a misnomer often spewed on the net.  It is the *Field of View* that is affected between the DX and FX sensors and the focal length does not change.


----------



## Early

My thinking was always that 28mm was too wide for most of my shooting, but not wide enough when I want wide.  Hence, it's usually 35mm or 24mm for my wide angle shots.


----------



## tsaraleksi

To expand on that-- the ONLY difference is that the edges are cropped off of the frame. If you stand in the same place and shoot with the same lens, but once with a crop and once with a full frame, and you cropped the full frame shot, the images would be identical. The difference in perspective happens because in order to get an image with similar *framing* on both cameras, you would need to change your position, therefore changing the distances between the camera and subject and altering the image's perspective. 

Hence, a 50mm lens on a 1.5 crop and an 85 on a full frame will provide very similar perspectives for images with the same framing.


----------



## JerryPH

Wandering Pugilist said:


> I was wondering if you thought it would be better to buy a 24-28 prime lens than use the kit lens of 18-55.


 
Kit lenses are... kit lenses and are cheap for a reason. A prime will give you better quality results each and every time. The thing is... is this prime the right focal distance for you when it comes time for your needs, well that is up to you to maybe rent or go to a local place and test it out... and as I mentioned, for landscapes, its about the same in focal length (little less wider, but nothing drastic) but for portraits, a lot of distortion, no matter what lens of that focal range you need (kit lens or prime). In terms of which prime, the link at the top will give you the info to select which is the better prime, but either will be better than a kit lens by far.

I am not understanding the making the photographer more invisible... I feel that a photographer cannot/should not be invisible to their subjects whenever you lift the camera to your eye... but what you could do is engage and connect with your model and make them feel comfortable. That way we don't need to become invisible, but are part of the process, even in a docmentary mode. 

I can see how using the flash on camera "points" to you and explodes this light right into the face of your subjects and that is distracting as hell, and that is a secondary reason to get that flash off camera... first reason being superior results, of course. 

This is more a style concern than anything else, and I am sure you have your reasons and ways of working that do good by you.

Good luck with your project and lens choice.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

JerryPH said:


> Kit lenses are... kit lenses and are cheap for a reason. A prime will give you better quality results each and every time. The thing is... is this prime the right focal distance for you when it comes time for your needs, well that is up to you to maybe rent or go to a local place and test it out... and as I mentioned, for landscapes, its about the same in focal length (little less wider, but nothing drastic) but for portraits, a lot of distortion, no matter what lens of that focal range you need (kit lens or prime). In terms of which prime, the link at the top will give you the info to select which is the better prime, but either will be better than a kit lens by far.


That's what I figured. Just wanted to be sure. I guess that was my biggest concern. How drastic was the 4mm in a landscape situation. I'm reading on the net that some people think 4mm is VERY noticeable, others, not so much. Of course I would like to save the $100 and just get the 28mm, but down the line, would it be better to just put in on the 24mm and have more versatility for the future, or what.

Also, is the distortion on subjects, well people, much more on a 24mm than a 28mm, or are we looking at similar distortion?



> I am not understanding the making the photographer more invisible... I feel that a photographer cannot/should not be invisible to their subjects whenever you lift the camera to your eye... but what you could do is engage and connect with your model and make them feel comfortable. That way we don't need to become invisible, but are part of the process, even in a docmentary mode.
> 
> I can see how using the flash on camera "points" to you and explodes this light right into the face of your subjects and that is distracting as hell, and that is a secondary reason to get that flash off camera... first reason being superior results, of course.


I see your point. I mean if you can't see anything, what's the point of a photo right? But I guess the thing is, I'm trying to capture the subject and their behavior as natural as possible for both the subject and the viewer. Regardless of how comfortable you become with a subject (which may be an issue given I do not have a lot of time to build a good repertoire with them), I believe they will act differently, perhaps only slightly, but still differently than if they knew a camera wasn't there. 

The other reason is I want to try and present the environment to the viewer as I see it. For instance, (and I am taking the words of a fellow boxing photographer), "If a gym is lit by only one hanging bulb, I want the viewer to see that." 

But again, I see your point. That's is why I do go between flash and non-flash in this project, but I lack heavily in comparison in the non-flash department. Just looking to enhance it.



> This is more a style concern than anything else, and I am sure you have your reasons and ways of working that do good by you.


Yeaahh...that's is what I am disappointingly realizing after reading all the reviews on the net and responses to this thread. I am indecisive as hell when it comes to purchasing lenses. I'm always just looking for the best lens to cover multiple situations (impossible I know), and thinking about the future, which inevitably changes. Guess I'm kinda stuck huh? 



> Good luck with your project and lens choice.


Thanks man. Same to you on your endeavors.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

tsaraleksi said:


> Wide-angle distortion is *less* significant on a crop when looking at a given lens. Perspective distortion is entirely a function of how far away the camera is from the subject. You could shoot a full body image with a wider angle (say, 28-35ish) and you wouldn't see any WA distortion in their facial features, etc. Wide angle is probably perfect for doing documentary shots of boxers-- I'm very jealous, really


Yeah I'm blessed really. Do you like shooting boxing as well?



> My main concern is that 2.8 won't be fast enough.


Yeah I hadn't really thought about that (don't know why), but looking at my price range, the only other thing that fits is the 35mm f2.0. Would that be a better choice between the three given the speed?


----------



## kundalini

I can't see these photos at work now, but I remember *this thread* (from another forum) with pictures and comments by actual users of the 35mm f/2 and was very impressed. It was also a bit disheartening to realize I haven't done as much with mine.

BTW, I just did a quick check and you should be able to get a full body shot from 10' from your subject....... assuming you're not trying to get someone like Shaq in the frame.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

kundalini said:


> I can't see these photos at work now, but I remember *this thread* (from another forum) with pictures and comments by actual users of the 35mm f/2 and was very impressed. It was also a bit disheartening to realize I haven't done as much with mine.
> 
> BTW, I just did a quick check and you should be able to get a full body shot from 10' from your subject....... assuming you're not trying to get someone like Shaq in the frame.


Whoa. Nice thread reference man. 14 pages though? Haha. No but the more the better in this context. Thanks a bunch!


----------



## Sw1tchFX

I think this might be a good start at looking at the 35mm f/1.8.


----------



## tsaraleksi

Wandering Pugilist said:


> Yeah I'm blessed really. Do you like shooting boxing as well?



I've never had the opportunity, but I would love to do so... it's always struck me as a very interesting subject, with maybe more depth than your average sports photography.


----------



## kundalini

Apparently Sigma has come out with a 35mm f/1.4 that might be worth a look.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

kundalini said:


> Apparently Sigma has come out with a 35mm f/1.4 that might be worth a look.


The last thing I need at this point is MORE options. lol. But thanks for the info. I'll check it out.


----------



## Mike_E

Get both, an AI'd 24mm is under $100 in great shape fully manual but at that FL zone focusing is a snap.  If you go with the 24mm (noticeable distortion) I'd go with the 35mm to compliment it.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

Mike_E said:


> Get both, an AI'd 24mm is under $100 in great shape fully manual but at that FL zone focusing is a snap.  If you go with the 24mm (noticeable distortion) I'd go with the 35mm to compliment it.


I was thinking that, but I can't at this point. But definitely a 24mm and 35mm, so I should just mark the 28mm off the list huh?


----------



## Mike_E

I would with a crop sensor.  The 28mm is a great lens with very little distortion but it isn't really wide per se unless used with a FF and then it's the equivalent of a 21mm in a 1.5 crop body.  The 24mm of course is an 18mm equiv. on a full frame.

Honestly though why don'[t you look at a Tamron zoom?  The 17-50mm 1:2.8 covers everything you mentioned and more..  Tamron | 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] | AF016N700


----------



## JerryPH

Mike_E said:


> I would with a crop sensor.  The 28mm is a great lens with very little distortion but it isn't really wide per se unless used with a FF and then it's the equivalent of a 24mm in a 1.5 crop body.  The 24mm of course is an 18mm equiv. on a full frame.



Wait, are we talking DX or FX lenses?  If we are talking DX lenses, on his cropped sensor, whatever the mm rating, it is what it is.  If it is a FX lens on a DX camera (his D80), it is the other way around  ... that 24mm turns into a (24 X 1.5) 36mm and that 28 becomes a 42mm.  Neither very wide.  I would suggest that if width is his priority, the Sigma 10-20mm is the best choice, but if low light sensitivity is more important than width, the Sigma 18-50 EX DC HSM F/2.8 is the better choice.



Mike_E said:


> Honestly though why don'[t you look at a Tamron zoom?  The 17-50mm 1:2.8 covers everything you mentioned and more..  Tamron | 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] | AF016N700



I would counter with the Sigma lens because it beat the Tamron and Nikkor 17-55  3 times out of 3 in a shootout last year by 3 independant sources, plus you get a free 3:1 macro tossed in on top of the deal.  

Uh oh... we're adding options, not taking them away... lol

Sincerely, the demands of a landscape and portrait lens are vastly different, and though we can take pictures of people with a sub 50mm lens, its just not the same quality and final result as a lens between 85-105mm.  

Decisions, decisions!

(for Wandering Pugilist):  BTW, did you go to the link in my first post that I provided at the top?  If you did, you would have seen that... well... neither prime lens is all that great, both suffer from distortions up the wazoo (both well over 1%, which is pretty significant for a prime!).

Let me give you the direct links and save you a few seconds:

Nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8D - Review / Test Report

Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8D - Review / Test Report

Now, I do not know your budget... but that Sigma to me looks better and better all the time.  At the 18mm range, the Sigma has distortion, but less than the 28mm does (it is the better of the 2 between the 24 and 28, BTW).  By 24mm its near invisible, and from 35mm up, the lens  is basically free of distortion.

Again, let me save you 2-3 clicks:
Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro - Review / Lab Test Report            

Now, just to let you know, they preferred the Tamron over the Sigma, which to me is hard to believe based on the tests made by the 3 independent photography magazines back in early 2008 who all chose the Sigma over the Tamron and (3 times more expensive) Nikkor.

*Edit:*  Ok I did some research.  The test on the Sigma 18-50 links above were done with the *2nd generation* Sigma, which was not as good as the *3rd generation* one (the one that you want and the only one that is available new today... the 1st and 2nd gens were discontinued when the 3rd generation was released).  You can identify the new Sigmas as the 18-50 DC EX *HSM* MACRO F/2.8 (first gens were pityful!  QC issues, back focusing and poor performance).  The distortion is even less on the HSM version as well as an increase in sharpness, reduced CA characteristics and better flare control.  Of course, it has the HSM, meaning that cameras like the D40s-D60s can use this lens and still get autofocus to work.

So... how confused are you as to a choice now???  

Not that my word makes any difference to anyone here, but I own the 18-50 DC EX HSM, and have been nothing but impressed and very happy with the results it gave me on my D200.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

Woah. Awesome research there Jerry! Thank you so much!

But like you said, now you just have me even more confused 

My budget is probably $350 max, maaaybe $400, but the reason I am so indecisive (apart from my personality), is that I'm trying to find a good fit for my lens so I won't have to keep buying lenses (yeah, like everyone else right). 

I experimented with my kit lens in my boxing gym today with a 24mm and 35mm range and found that the 35mm was still too cramped so I'm leaning towards the 24mm, even though it isn't as fast. Well, the kit lens is a DX and I'm not sure if the ones I've been looking at are FX or DX. If it is FX, would that mean a 24mm would show up closer on a viewfinder and the 35mm even moreso? 

Well, I'll take a look at all the suggestions, but either way, ya'll have been a ton of help. :thumbup:


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

So I'm taking a look at both the zoom lenses you both have recommended to me. I mean I've always been under the assumption that Nikon glass are better than aftermarket and prime lenses always have better quality results than zoom lenses, but since both zoom lenses appeared to have performed better than both the Nikon lenses, are these statements misleading?


----------



## tsaraleksi

JerryPH said:


> Wait, are we talking DX or FX lenses?  If we are talking DX lenses, on his cropped sensor, whatever the mm rating, it is what it is.  If it is a FX lens on a DX camera (his D80), it is the other way around  ... that 24mm turns into a (24 X 1.5) 36mm and that 28 becomes a 42mm.  Neither very wide.  I would suggest that if width is his priority, the Sigma 10-20mm is the best choice, but if low light sensitivity is more important than width, the Sigma 18-50 EX DC HSM F/2.8 is the better choice.



No, a DX lens has still got to be multiplied out just as a traditional lens would. (ie an 18-200 DX Nikkor multiplied out has "an effective range" of 27-300).


----------



## JerryPH

tsaraleksi said:


> No, a DX lens has still got to be multiplied out just as a traditional lens would. (ie an 18-200 DX Nikkor multiplied out has "an effective range" of 27-300).



Effective range as compared to a 35mm sensor, fine, but both the prime lenses being discussed (24mm and 28mm) are FX lenses from what I see, so they are not going to be wider than 24 or 28mm, on a crop sensor, they will be equivalent to (whatever mm X 1.5 on a D80) not less.

Maybe because I've again not slept since yesterday I could be screwy, but thats the way I am seeing it.


----------



## JerryPH

Wandering Pugilist said:


> So I'm taking a look at both the zoom lenses you both have recommended to me. I mean I've always been under the assumption that Nikon glass are better than aftermarket and prime lenses always have better quality results than zoom lenses, but since both zoom lenses appeared to have performed better than both the Nikon lenses, are these statements misleading?



There is no hard fast rule.  Most of the time the primes win, but not always.  The same concept is valid for OEM vs 3rd party lenses.  I always say to do the research and find out what is happening specifically with the lenses you want.  

Example, in the Nikon world, there is NOTHING, no competition anywhere for the Nikkor 85mm F/1.4, even though it is a 1980's lens.  That cannot be said of the 17-55 range class where the Sigma beats all.  It is so good, that yes, *in this case*, it even beats 2 older style primes quite handily.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

So I've been reading user reviews on both the Tamron and Sigma.

Apparently the Sigma has problems with front focus and many people report receiving "bad copies", although most of those are for the Canon lens. I believe the Nikon lens is a bit newer so there has been less time for testing, but does Sigma problems typically show up on the same lens regardless of what camera it's made for?

Also, the Tamron lens most people are reporting it works fine, although a few are also reporting needing to constantly return it due to receiving defective copies and some report significant vignetting after 2 years of use. 

Are the Nikon prime lenses typically more durable?


----------



## JerryPH

Some 2nd generations had focus issues, not the 3rd gen. No one that I know has this. (I was a member of the Flickr Sigma 18-50 group for over a year and also did about 2 months research before purchasing.  The 3rd gen has been out now well over a year. 

If there was a blatant issue, I would be VERY happy to tell you. The Tamron is also not without faults. About 30% of them over time slowly started to rattle and do wierd things... becuase the 3 retention screws inside that held the front element to the lens came loose. Some loctite a small screwdriver and 30 min work most often fixed that. For people not mechanically inclined, sending it back to Tamrom was a 170 dollar bill, plus shipping and not covered under warranty for some reason.

Focus tests done with my Sigma 18-50:






Near perfection.


----------



## digital flower

I love my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon. The price was right for me. The macro feature (not 1:1) is nice since the minimum focusing distance is 7.1". 

In this thread I posted some pictures shot with my D70s. The 24mm works well on the new FX camera.


----------



## JerryPH

Minimum focus distance for the 18-50 is really thin, just under 1 inch:





And though it is a 3:1 macro, the results are not all that terrible:



Click on the pic above to see a bigger (still not full size, though) shot.


----------



## Wandering Pugilist

Thanks for the examples Jerry. How long have you had the lens for?


----------



## rufus5150

> Second, wide lenses are TERRIBLE portrait lenses.



Actually 'Go wide and push in tight' is a rising (if not nearly fully risen) trend in portraiture. You just have to position the subject so that the distorted bits are contextual, not part of the subject.


----------



## JerryPH

Wandering Pugilist said:


> Thanks for the examples Jerry. How long have you had the lens for?


Over a year, coming up on 1.5 years now.


----------



## JerryPH

rufus5150 said:


> Actually 'Go wide and push in tight' is a rising (if not nearly fully risen) trend in portraiture. You just have to position the subject so that the distorted bits are contextual, not part of the subject.



Not so much a trend as a fad.  Fads come and go for a reason... just like when we thought certain things worked well in the past, today we look at them and chuckle at how obtuse they really are.

Examples include the faces of the B&G in a brandy snifter, having the bride kneel down and using the back of her dress raised up higher than her head and used as a reflector or cutting off people's heads in whole or in part.  

These are all "stylistic" examples and I would place using a wide angle lens up tight as a portrait lens right up there beside the picture of someone who's nose is smack dead center of a shot taken with a fisheye.  That nose looks HUGE and the rest of the face rolls off into the background.  

A wide angle obviously doesn't distort things that bad, but it is there, and that is the same kind of effect you are giving your subject just to a lesser degree.   Now, since a traditional portrait is all about making your subject look good, I cannot see how giving some chunky lady big chipmunk cheeks could be aesthetically pleasing...lol  That kind of effect has no place in a portrait photographer's portfolio, but it may perhaps have a place in some photographer's portfolio that has a loose artistic twinge of a specific kind.

Technically incorrect, visually not flattering, it *can* still be used from an artistic perspective, but now it is merely a matter of opinion.


----------



## tsaraleksi

Well, no crap a wide angle is not great for headshots. But there is more to portrait work than head and shoulders shots.


----------



## JerryPH

I never said that there wasn't more to portrait work than head and shoulders shots.  The point being the distortion is there with a wide angle lens irrespective if it is a full body or an up close and personal nose shot.  Wider hips or wider nose... in general, neither are positive traits.  If in doubt, ask any woman... lol.

We've mentioned that one can use any lens and take any shot with it, but the whole point was that the OP was not aware of the distortion issues and now that he does, can make a better decision based on this new knowledge, nothing more.

I don't want to drag the conversation away in to artistic interpretations or style differences.  In that world, there are *no* rules and everything goes, based on your tastes desires or goals.


----------



## bhop

FWIW, I have a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 lens and probably use it more than any of my other lenses.  (that's actually it in my avatar) I think in actual use, compared to internet tests, the wide distortion isn't so big a deal.

It also is good for me that it's not a DX lens because that lets me use it on my FE and F100 as well as my D cameras.


----------



## tsaraleksi

Like I said, there are 2 kinds of distortion going on with a wide angle lens. One is the actual optical distortion-- as in, curving lines near the edges of the frame. The other is the change in relative distance between different aspects of the image as you get closer and closer to something. 

A high quality WA will minimize optical distortion, though some is inevitable. The only thing that control the perspective distortion is distance to subject. However, on a crop camera, 28 or 35 is hardly wide enough for that to be a major issue unless you're trying to shoot headshots. And even then, for something like boxing photos, the subject's "attractiveness" is hardly going to be the primary concern.


----------



## djacobox372

Wandering Pugilist said:


> Thanks for the replies!
> 
> I am using a Nikon D80. I guess I am trying to "get the best bang for my buck", which I know almost never works out in photography. My biggest concern is the room I have for shooting in a low-light situation (boxing gyms, so as you can imagine, not a whole lot of room). I'm not really looking to do headshots, as my 50mm has worked out, at least to my satisfaction it has. I am rather trying to capture entire subjects and with the 50mm, I have to back up, more than I want to at least.
> 
> So on Jerry's advice (Thanks bro), I am reading through many reviews on the net. It looks like I'd get more distortion with the 24 than the 28, but I also like to take landscape and I'm reading a 28 offers less versatility. So, in my situation, should I go for a 28 and save up to buy something SUPER wide angle, or just put in the extra $100 for the 24?



To chime in on the distortion issue: the lens length doesn't affect distortion, it's the range to the subject.  There is no difference in distortion between a 50mm and a 24mm lens if the subject is at the same distance from the camera in both shots--obviously the subject will fill the frame more completely with the 50mm.

So, just make sure you are 12-15 feet or more from your subject when shooting anybody with any lens, and distortion won't be a problem.


----------

