Thanks Bryan, for another great article. I will be trying the 24 mm lens on upcoming projects. As for future workshops, could I suggest Big Bend National Park? I have always wanted to visit that area, and one of your photo workshops there would be a great reason to visit.
I've been to the Big Bend NP area but only drove through the park. We paddled the lower canyons of the Rio Grande. It would be fun to get back down there.
Hi Bryan - first off thank you so much not only for sharing your awesome photos but for taking us along on the journey and for sharing your expertise and insights. I shoot a Nikon Z7II body and am torn between buying a 24mm and a 20mm lens. I have a 24-120mm f/4 as my walk-around lens. If you already had that setup would that push you to get a 20mm f/1.8 to use to begin taking night/astro photos and for landscapes as well? Appreciate your time and thoughts. Take care. -Dean
That's a tough choice. I personally lean towards zoom lenses. The challenge with the Nikon Z system is that the 14-30mm is an f/4 and the 14-24 f/2.8 only goes to 24mm. If Nikon made a Z 16-35 f/2.8, then I'd steer you towards that lens. Nikon doesn't make it, so it's a tough choice. The Z 20mm f/1.8 is better than the Z 24mm f/1.8 and gives you a different focal length. Unless you need the extra stops of light, I'd personally lean towards the Z 14-30 f/4. Nikon doesn't make it easy for photographers looking for a good wide zoom that can use filters and is f/2.8. It's too bad that they don't follow the lead of Sony and Canon when it comes to wide angle zooms.
I used that focal length plug in you told me about. I have some clusters of work, and 24 is one of them (maybe because of a 24-105 lens) . Your arguments are sound I think. The ultra wide angle lenses require a different kind of photography altogether to get the best results than say, 24-28 mm.
Agree and going back to a 24 prime from a 20… after a lot of trial and error, the 24 to me just looks “right” to me way more often than the 20 in how elements come together… 20 generally pushes everything back to much, is too wide for people also, plus doesn’t give you the drama of the foreground if needed like a 14-16 would.
Thanks Bryan, for another great article. I will be trying the 24 mm lens on upcoming projects. As for future workshops, could I suggest Big Bend National Park? I have always wanted to visit that area, and one of your photo workshops there would be a great reason to visit.
Ed.
I've been to the Big Bend NP area but only drove through the park. We paddled the lower canyons of the Rio Grande. It would be fun to get back down there.
Hi Bryan - first off thank you so much not only for sharing your awesome photos but for taking us along on the journey and for sharing your expertise and insights. I shoot a Nikon Z7II body and am torn between buying a 24mm and a 20mm lens. I have a 24-120mm f/4 as my walk-around lens. If you already had that setup would that push you to get a 20mm f/1.8 to use to begin taking night/astro photos and for landscapes as well? Appreciate your time and thoughts. Take care. -Dean
That's a tough choice. I personally lean towards zoom lenses. The challenge with the Nikon Z system is that the 14-30mm is an f/4 and the 14-24 f/2.8 only goes to 24mm. If Nikon made a Z 16-35 f/2.8, then I'd steer you towards that lens. Nikon doesn't make it, so it's a tough choice. The Z 20mm f/1.8 is better than the Z 24mm f/1.8 and gives you a different focal length. Unless you need the extra stops of light, I'd personally lean towards the Z 14-30 f/4. Nikon doesn't make it easy for photographers looking for a good wide zoom that can use filters and is f/2.8. It's too bad that they don't follow the lead of Sony and Canon when it comes to wide angle zooms.
I used that focal length plug in you told me about. I have some clusters of work, and 24 is one of them (maybe because of a 24-105 lens) . Your arguments are sound I think. The ultra wide angle lenses require a different kind of photography altogether to get the best results than say, 24-28 mm.
Went back to check usage by focal length. In the 12-24mm range, almost always learned toward the 24mm end of the range. Your article is right on!
Agree and going back to a 24 prime from a 20… after a lot of trial and error, the 24 to me just looks “right” to me way more often than the 20 in how elements come together… 20 generally pushes everything back to much, is too wide for people also, plus doesn’t give you the drama of the foreground if needed like a 14-16 would.