Hello everybody,
I need some help on taking a decision, I have the Nikon 35mm 1.4G, that I really enjoy, but I have the opportunity to put my hands on a used 24mm 1.4G at a really bargain price.
For the folks that have or used to own these two lenses, I would like to ask if it’s worth having both lenses or are they too similar, besides being also very close in focal length.
Thank You for your feedback.
Thank you for the reply,
I actually used to own the 24mm 1.4, but i returned it because of the price tag (cnd2600.00), i was very impressed with the IQ of that lens.
I have the 24G and the Sigma art 35 and they are two of my favorites. Absolutely different enough to warrant keeping both, in my book. The 35mm FOV is probably more generally useful, but I just adore the rendering of the 24.
Is it for landscape work, events? If you are shooting events, weddings, etc, I think both are very good. If Landscape I would probably take the 24 if I had to choose. But I would never get rid of my 35.
Gregg Heckler wrote:
Is it for landscape work, events? If you are shooting events, weddings, etc, I think both are very good. If Landscape I would probably take the 24 if I had to choose. But I would never get rid of my 35.
I use the 35mm 1.4G for events, from what i have read the 24mm 1.4G is quite excellent for landscape usage.
Elijah wrote:
I'm a wedding photographer and I own both.
Sold my 24-70mm and now roll with 24mm f/1.4G and 35mm f/1.4G.
Honestly there's nothing wrong with owning both. Each has their own purpose, especially for weddings.
If I was shooting landscapes? Without a doubt a 24-70mm wins.
Thank you for the feedback Elijah, in my mind i always imagined a 14-24 zoom for landscape work, but i guess the 24-70mm can give a different perspective.
I have both, and a 58mm f1.4G. Got the 24mm f1.4G first, and loved it, have got the 35mm f1.4G a couple of months back and am loving it too. I am not a pro, just a serious hobbyist. These three lenses, together with the new 105mm f1.4E are just an awesome set. You will never regret getting both 24 and 35mm f1.4G lenses, go for it. They are very different lenses.
sandy27000 wrote:
I have both, and a 58mm f1.4G. Got the 24mm f1.4G first, and loved it, have got the 35mm f1.4G a couple of months back and am loving it too. I am not a pro, just a serious hobbyist. These three lenses, together with the new 105mm f1.4E are just an awesome set. You will never regret getting both 24 and 35mm f1.4G lenses, go for it. They are very different lenses.
+1 on this awesome set! I have everything you listed myself.
For the sake of frustration, I sold four lenses and kept the 24/35/58/105 combo.
In my opinion, one can survive with just 24/35/58.
Chris Court wrote:
I have the 24G and the Sigma art 35 and they are two of my favorites. Absolutely different enough to warrant keeping both, in my book. The 35mm FOV is probably more generally useful, but I just adore the rendering of the 24.
C
I have both as well (Nikon 24 and Sigma 35 ART), and love both. They're very different and are both wonderful gems. For portraits, the 35mm rocks on both FX and DX, while the 24 is 35mm look-a-like on DX. 24mm is simply too wide and too much distortion for closer portraits, but can be wonderful for environmental portraits. The 35mm ART is just a wonderful lens to have on my D800E as a general purpose fast lens.
For me, they're both extremely valuable focal lengths, and specifically two very well performing lenses in my bag. The large apertures also give you come incredible control over DOF.
If you have a chance to get the Nikon at a "bargain", I wouldn't hesitate!
Chris Court wrote:
I have the 24G and the Sigma art 35 and they are two of my favorites. Absolutely different enough to warrant keeping both, in my book. The 35mm FOV is probably more generally useful, but I just adore the rendering of the 24.
C
Same as me. In fact, I replied almost the exact same thing to this same OP over at DPR
"I used to have both and they are a good lens combination, not close focal lengths at all. However, I did sell the Nikon once I purchased the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art.
The Sigma is a sharper lens and a good walk around street lens, but I like my Nikon 24 f1.4 better."
Elijah wrote:
I'm a wedding photographer and I own both.
Sold my 24-70mm and now roll with 24mm f/1.4G and 35mm f/1.4G.
Honestly there's nothing wrong with owning both. Each has their own purpose, especially for weddings.
If I was shooting landscapes? Without a doubt a 24-70mm wins.
My 24-70 is all about convenience and versatility. My landscape shots are planned and dont require those features. Plus, my primes are just sharper and brighter. I still have my 24-70, but I sure dont use it for much, including landscapes. I would consider a wide angle zoom like a 14-24 or 15-30 for landscapes, as the prime options are more limited in ultra wide, but there are far too many great primes in the 24-50 range to use a zoom for landscapes in that focal range. YMMV.
I'm going to say the same things as others before, I have both and would never sell any. The 35 is perfect as a walk-around/generalistic lens while the 24 is perfect for landscape/architecture and indoors. I love the 24 but the 35 has awesome character too. Love them both.
I got the 85 to complete the trinity and imo I could live forever with the 24/35/85 1.4G trio.
There're already a few other threads about the 24/1.4G and 35/1.4G here and here
In the last one a posted 2 images of the 24 and 35. They render more or less the same, the 24 is a little sharper.
I sold my 35 and 85 to finance the 105/1.4E, I miss the 35 the most a and probable get one again in the future (or perhaps a 35E ).
At the moment my trinity is the 24, 58 and 105
).