24mm 1.4 or 35mm 1.4

[golunvolo]

An impossible question? Please, share your preferences or opinions. I have a chance of getting only one of those second hand.

  Thnaks

[David H. Hartman]

I'd go for the 24/1.4 for the ability to shoot had held in low light.

[golunvolo]

Thank you David. The discussion can go on but I just change completely and got the new 70-200 fl  It is the lens I use the most for work so it makes sense and they took in my previous one -vr II version of the same lens- for almost what I paid for it.

  I think I would have gone for the 24 since I have the 50mm

[David H. Hartman]

golunvolo,

I'm was thinking of night photography. Night architecture, city streets with cars and people and deserted also. Stars, the milky way, etc.

The AF-S 20/1.8G ED might do the same fairly well. I haven't read reviews lately. I have the 20/1.8G ED and like it. I toyed with the 24/1.4G in an open box but it was too expensive. It's a lens I'd like.

Best,

Dave

[Frank Fremerey]

The 1.4/24 is a wonderful lens on DX and FX. I bought it in 2011 and use it heavily. Highly recommended. Very good geometrical correction without electronic support. So great fit for architecture.

[Frank Fremerey]

I have the 1.8/20G too. Also a superb lens. Much cheaper. Ultra high resolution also on the high density of the D500.

The 1.4/24G is less technical. At f/1.4 the bokeh is pure fairy dust in the right light. Magic. For precision work both lenses shine from 2.8 to 8.0. Stunning.

[Akira]

Unless you absolutely need the f1.4 speed, I would recommend the f1.8 versions.  They can get closer, are more versatile.  But if you would go for an f1.8 version, I would recommend 20/1.8 over 24/1.8.  The optical quality of 24/1.8 is slightly better than that of 20/1.8, but I found 20/1.8 is even more versatile than 24/1.8.  Also, the largest magnification factor of 20/1.8 is larger than that of 24/1.8.  I technically replaced 24/1.8 with 20/1.8 and am happy with the decision.

[David H. Hartman]

On a D750 one can probably crop an AF-S 20/1.8G ED back to the field of view of a 24mm lens without loss for typical use. Cropping a 20/1.8G back to 24mm is quite easy and painless with a D800.

Dave

[Akira]

On a D750 one can probably crop an AF-S 20/1.8G ED back to the field of view of a 24mm lens without loss for typical use. Cropping a 20/1.8G back to 24mm is quite easy and painless with a D800.

Dave

Dave, that was exactly the part of the reason for my switching from 24 to 20!

[Erik Lund]

Both 24 and 35mm 1.4 AFS are wonderful lenses! Difference is more or less only the focal length and that gives the 35mm a possible better or easier way of handling Bokeh, since it's a longer focal length.


Both have very good transitions of color and tone and ample sharpness and maybe the 35mm is more forgivable when stopping down the aperture,,,


My best advice would be to have both!

[Jakov Minić]

Dear Paco,

I don't have the 35/1.4, that focal length just doesn't suit me, go figure.
However, I do have the 24/1.4 and the 20/1.8.
I rarely use the 24/1.4 ever since I bought the 20/1.8.
The 20/1.8 is (apart from cheaper) lighter and more versatile for me, and I cannot see any deterioration in image quality compared to the 24/1.4

So my advice would be to buy all three lenses!

Yours, Jakov

[golunvolo]

Thanks Jakov.

   And excellent advise 😂😂🙈

[JJChan]

Dear Paco
I have and love the 35mm 1.4. I’ve written previously about how Haruo Sato’s twins (35 and 58mm) have similar rendition quality. For me it is a short normal - a bit more usable when 58mm too long.

JJ

[chris dees]

For me neither of both.
35mm is not wide enough for me. The 24mm is too wide for people and not wide enough for "real" wide-angle.
I would opt for the 28/1.4 ( or 1.8 ).

[John Geerts]

It's all very personal. I find the 24 mm  a 'difficult' focal length, I prefer 28 or 35 mm for a normal wide lens, or the 20 mm, in which case I can recommend the Sigma 20/1.4