Which lens should I get? Canon 24mm 2.8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm 2.8 IS USM

Hi!

I've been trying to make a decision for sometime now and it feels like the more I read the more undecided I get.

I have a 6D body and usually use the 50mm 1.4, although I've been struggling indoors and with some landscapes. I don't have much budget to spend on a new lens (don't want to spend over 500€) so I thought the 28mm or the 24mm would do the trick.

Is the 24mm too wide? Is the 28mm more of a "go-to" lens? Or, since I want a wider lens, I should go to the widest possible?

Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

You should consider how often you would use either focal length, how used you are to the 24mm or 28mm, and whether getting the widest possible is worth the extra $100 if you dont use it enough.

I have a 1D4 with the 1.3x crop so the 24mm IS is next on my list instead of the 28mm after getting the 35mm f2 IS recently.

I have the 6D - don't have the 24mm but I was highly considering it, it would be a good buy in my opinion.
I already have the 24-105mm so I really don't need it.

tepatroni wrote:

Hi!

I've been trying to make a decision for sometime now and it feels like the more I read the more undecided I get.

I have a 6D body and usually use the 50mm 1.4, although I've been struggling indoors and with some landscapes. I don't have much budget to spend on a new lens (don't want to spend over 500€) so I thought the 28mm or the 24mm would do the trick.

Is the 24mm too wide?

maybe

Is the 28mm more of a "go-to" lens?

maybe

Or, since I want a wider lens, I should go to the widest possible?

maybe

Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

As another poster said, if you get the 24 and it's too wide in some situations you can crop to the same view the 28 would give, but with the 28 you cannot go wider if needed.

Alternatively, for about the same price as either you can get the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, or even the f/4L as a "white box" special, and have both focal lengths (and several others ).  As you use the zoom you'll be able to determine which prime would be most useful for you.

24-105/3.5-5.6 v. 24/2.8

24-105/3.5-5.6 v. 28/2.8

Unfortunately it's quite complicated. For reference, I usually don't shoot wider than 35mm (on FF). This is a great all-purpose lens.

IMO, 28-35 is moderate wide angle territory. 25/24 is where true wide-angle starts (though I wouldn't be surprised if some consider 24 to still be moderate). Some people really love 24/25s. For me, this focal length starts to introduce too much perspective distortion in some situations (such as indoors). As you get wider it gets worse. But again, that all depends on what you are photographing.

When travelling, and wanting to go wide, I find 24 to be not wide enough. I would rather be around 18. So for me, 24 is a sort of in-between lens. I would never buy one.

28 can be quite a useful length. It can handle indoors, street, landscape without introducing the perspective distortion that I don't like.

Have you read reviews of the two lenses? I do believe the 28 is better optically.

Nikon has a lens simulator that might help you some:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

I didn't check the lens quality of the Canon 24mm vs. 28mm, but all things being equal, I would recommend the 24mm. Years ago I owned a 28mm lens and found myself often wishing I had opted for a wider lens.

Or--and this would be a better choice when you can afford it--the 16-35 f/4L IS would eliminate the issue and open up a vast array of shooting possibilities. I've shot a ton of low light assignments with this lens and find I really don't miss the earlier f/2.8 aperture.

What about a 28mm and a 24mm pancake?  IS isn't always needed.

tepatroni wrote:

Hi!

I've been trying to make a decision for sometime now and it feels like the more I read the more undecided I get.

I have a 6D body and usually use the 50mm 1.4, although I've been struggling indoors and with some landscapes. I don't have much budget to spend on a new lens (don't want to spend over 500€) so I thought the 28mm or the 24mm would do the trick.

Is the 24mm too wide? Is the 28mm more of a "go-to" lens? Or, since I want a wider lens, I should go to the widest possible?

Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

24mm can distort a face a little if you get up close. 28mm is better all around lens for people photos and general landscape, indoors wide angle, and street photography, etc. Its a great all around lens with a good focal length for most wide angle shots. However, if you mainly do landscape, go with the 24mm.

rlr001 wrote:

tepatroni wrote:

Hi!

I've been trying to make a decision for sometime now and it feels like the more I read the more undecided I get.

I have a 6D body and usually use the 50mm 1.4, although I've been struggling indoors and with some landscapes. I don't have much budget to spend on a new lens (don't want to spend over 500€) so I thought the 28mm or the 24mm would do the trick.

Is the 24mm too wide? Is the 28mm more of a "go-to" lens? Or, since I want a wider lens, I should go to the widest possible?

Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

24mm can distort a face a little if you get up close. 28mm is better all around lens for people photos and general landscape, indoors wide angle, and street photography, etc. Its a great all around lens with a good focal length for most wide angle shots. However, if you mainly do landscape, go with the 24mm.

DPP does a pretty good job correcting the 24mm's distortion.

I went 24mm because I already had 35mm and 28mm would have been too close.

However, I consider a 28mm as a "one-lense compromise" for those who don't want to carry both (24 & 35).

Ultimately it's about your use case and preference but my advice would be that 28mm is easier to manage than the quite wide 24mm. 24 is a bit more specialised in a sense.