# 24mm - Digital Photography's magical focal length?



## Sabaki (Jan 5, 2015)

Like the majority of us on this site, I tend to read something about photography on a daily basis and I try to absorb as much as possible.

One of the things that I've noted, is the popularity of the 24mm focal length.

It certainly is a focal length that is present in many different lenses and as I'm typing here, I can think of at least 8 lenses that have 24mm in it's range.

I have one lens which incorporates this focal length and that is my 24-70 mkii.

But I have a confession to make, I can't 'see' photography in 24mm and I think I'm losing out on what may be the most versatile focal length in digital photography. In fact, I would ask, is 24mm to digital photography what 35mm was to film?

What I mean by 'see' is that when I'm shooting with my 100mm macro or 400mm, I can envision what I want to capture and snap the shot.
I think a big reason for this is that I know what appeals to macro photography and bird/wildlife photography so I kinda have a feel for the 'psychology' of these focal lengths.

I am however stumped as to what I can do with the 24mm focal length.

Is it best as a people lens? What does it bring for landscapes? What other genres benefits from shooting at 24mm?

This may be somewhat of an odd question and I can imagine many wouldn't find this topic interesting but I fear I bought the 24-70 in a question to own the holy trinity but I never envisioned what to do with the lens.

I'm looking for that EUREKA moment where I get what this lens and specifically 24mm is about and will know instinctively to use this lens in a specific scenario.

Once again, I understand if this thread only returns a few replies (actually I'm hoping for just one ) but I'm looking to explore different aspects of photography this year as opposed to being fixated on gear talk and tech babble.

What do you guys 'see' when you reach for your 24mm? What do you expect from the final image?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 5, 2015)

It's interesting that you bring this up: years ago a 24 mil lens cost nearly twice as much as the equivalent 28 mil lens. Now they are about the same, and I think this legacy has something to do with the massive popularity over the 28 that we now see, even though you could argue that 28 is often a 'better' focal length in that they are normally much better in the corners than a 24, and generally make for easier composition in relation to foreground etc. 

Personally speaking, give me a 28 over a 24 anyday.


----------



## michalk (Jan 5, 2015)

In my case I like 24mm for several reasons. It is great for full body portraits when space is limited, great for indoor events. The small amount of foreshortening can be used creatively. It is one of the most versatile focal lengths for landscapes (not wide enough to lose all the background detail, but wide enough to capture a lot of the scene and the small amount of foreshortening makes the foreground stand out more). I find myself using it more than 50mm, which so many people claim to be the most versatile focal length.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2015)

There's nothing 'magical' about 24mm, just as there's nothing 'magical' about 100mm (except that we like decimal numbers, but there are 90mm and 105mm macro kenses, too). 

24mm is the dividing line between wide and ultrawide angle (on FF), and several popular 24-xx zoom lenses start there. But I'd say those factoids are happenstance – 24mm is the 'short side' of a FF sensor (and film before that). I'm sure lots of shots are taken at 24mm, but generally the ends of the zoom range get used more frequently. A shot taken at a certain focal length may be cropped to a narrower FoV in post. 

Personally, when I chose between the 24/1.4L II and 35/1.4L intended for indoor ambient light shooting, I set my 24-xx zoom to each FL for a while. I preferred 35mm, and found myself cropping many of the 24mm images to an FoV much closer to 35mm. So, I bought the 35L.


----------



## zlatko (Jan 5, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> But I have a confession to make, I can't 'see' photography in 24mm and I think I'm losing out on what may be the most versatile focal length in digital photography. In fact, I would ask, is 24mm to digital photography what 35mm was to film?



It is best for landscape and architecture, definitely not best for people. The reason you can't "see" in 24mm is that it's wider than most people normally see. 24mm has nothing special to do with digital or with being what 35mm was to film. 35mm is to digital photography the same as what 35mm was to film.


----------



## e17paul (Jan 5, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> But I have a confession to make, I can't 'see' photography in 24mm and I think I'm losing out on what may be the most versatile focal length in digital photography. In fact, I would ask, is 24mm to digital photography what 35mm was to film?



24mm on a crop sensor is the approximate equivalent of 35mm on film or full frame. Most digital photography is crop (though that is not reflected on this forum), where 24mm gives a 38mm equivalent at 1.6x crop, and 36mm on 1.5x crop.

35mm not much wider than the believed human field of vision, and what I became used to with a compact 35mm camera as a teenager in the 1980s. Modern fixed focal length cameras tend to use a 35mm equivalent lens (eg. 23mm x 1.5 on the Fuji XT100), and the field of view that most of the 'non photographer' masses are used to on their phones is similar.

My 24mm and 50mm lenses always travel with my 6D, but sometimes I wonder if I should just have a 35mm lens. The fisheye and telephoto zoom only travel when I can foresee a need for them, or I am carrying full kit.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jan 5, 2015)

35mm on full frame sensor is great for photojournalism. This is my favorite focal length to photograph my toddler son. One word to describe the special look is intimacy. Because of the wide angle I can shoot from 2-3 feet away from him. Not too far, not too close. Just right. And because I'm so close to my subject, the picture will come out showing closeness. 

24mm on your cropped body approximates the same look. But not quite the same unless you have 24 1.4. You go to Flickr and search for 40mm pancake, sigma 35, canon 35, and then you'll see what it looks like on full frame.

When shooting wide open on my 6d, the 35mm prime does give a magical look.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 5, 2015)

I really liked the 24mm (38mm equiv) on my APS-C body but I tend to use the 10-22 more now. The special of this focal length is that it's perspective tends to be that of the human eye-brain-system in standard mode.
If I am focussed on a detail, my personal feeling is that of sth. between 100 and 200 mm equivalent. But in the "dreaming mode" I have more of a 180° panorama feeling.

Usually I am much more focussed on details so 100-300mm represent my "frame of interest" - therfore I have a good idea of photographing my personal "view". A 70-200 zoom on APS-C (100-300 equiv) is MY standard lens.

By the way: I am waiting for my EF-M 22 which will serve as a "ultrawide" (for my taste) with an imaging back cap ... errr .. the EOS M - so I will reengage that focal length if necessary ...

Historically I think it was the idea that focal length and active area should be the same and technical restrictions have nailed the focal length of the "standard wide lens" to 35 mm: small lens diameter for getting f/3.5 (10mm) and no need for retrofocus constructions in the pre SLR era. With SLRs entering the market the standard focal length was increased to 50mm to keep the mirror path clear without too much effort.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 5, 2015)

Other than just fitting everything in the frame, I think wide (24mm or wider) when I want to draw attention to an object in a pretty or interesting environment, like a shoreline scene. Get very close to the object (maybe it's driftwood or an interesting rock) so that it is prominent in the frame, use deep DOF. These shots can be very dramatic.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 5, 2015)

I used to be like you not a long time ago. 
I surfed the web, I looked at different pictures and I made up my mind what focal length I would use.
That changed about a year ago.
My suggestion to you is, plan a special assignment, go to an event and shoot the whole thing with only a focal length of 24mm.
As photographers our task is to tell story, believe it or not but from a 24mm and 100mm you tell two different stories. Someone said once; put yourself in my position and then judge me.
This is where my suggestion comes from; learn to see this life from others standpoint. You have already the lens. Just plan well and do it.

To answer to your question, this is subjective but in my eyes the magical focal lengths are (without any technical justification - just personal feeling): 18mm, 35mm, 85mm, 200mm and 400m (on full frame)
Although popular, I find 24, 50,100mm and 135mm to be in no man's land, I mean on both sides of the magic and doesn't accentuate it.

Not only that you get different feeling looking at your images but different feeling when taking them.
Shooting with 24mm (or 35mm for that matter) requires different technique and different behavior. I was quite astonished finding out what was missing in my character and understanding photography. 
In particular, you will learn how to approach people and get one of a kind, for that focal length, expressions. From technical standpoint, you will learn how to manage distortion, especially when shooting people.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 5, 2015)

I shoot a lot at 24mm. I own both a 24-70 II and a 24-105 f4 IS. And love it.

I think 24mm is great for shooting a scene. That is the people at the dinner table, the Ferris wheel at the fair etc. Very "normal" shots. It is wide, and there is some distortion, but it is generally OK.

I does not work for may things. Head Shots, sports, wildlife macro etc. 

I don't own a 17-40 or 16-35, but as these lenses but 24mm in the middle, it would be interesting to see how many shots people do wi this at (or close to) 24mm.


----------



## knoxtown (Jan 5, 2015)

I probably shoot at least half of my assignments at 24mm. It's great for photojournalism if you don't mind getting close. Really close. I don't think it's as popular as it used to be. It seems that most people either go ultra-wide (16-20mm range) or a more standard 35mm. 

That's what is great about photography, there's no right or wrong. It's all good. 


Update: After I posted this, I checked my archive tags to see which lens I've been using the past year the most. I haven't used anything longer than a 50mm in a year. Craziness haha


----------



## zlatko (Jan 5, 2015)

e17paul said:


> 24mm on a crop sensor is the approximate equivalent of 35mm on film or full frame. Most digital photography is crop (though that is not reflected on this forum), where 24mm gives a 38mm equivalent at 1.6x crop, and 36mm on 1.5x crop.



Oh yes, on a crop body the 24mm is a great people lens. Very versatile as a near normal moderate wide angle.


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 6, 2015)

Besisika said:


> I used to be like you not a long time ago.
> I surfed the web, I looked at different pictures and I made up my mind what focal length I would use.
> That changed about a year ago.
> My suggestion to you is, plan a special assignment, go to an event and shoot the whole thing with only a focal length of 24mm.
> ...



This! I really like this bit of advise. Telling different stories of the same scene by using different focal lengths. 

I think I should have a "24mm Month", where I exclusively walk around with my 24-70 on my camera and shoot at 24mm.

My photography is generally capturing wildlife, which is for all intents and purposes record photography.

Time for me to learn to tell a different kind of story I think 

michalk's advising about full body portraits is also something that intrigues me.

In general though, I'm thinking I should expand my exercise to 35mm too as many here have solid reasons for shooting at that focal length.

Interesting how I've accumilated gear but not the "psychology" to each piece.

Thanks everyone! I'm open to any suggestions so please do keep the concepts and points of view rolling in


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Like the majority of us on this site, I tend to read something about photography on a daily basis and I try to absorb as much as possible.
> 
> One of the things that I've noted, is the popularity of the 24mm focal length.
> 
> ...


I have two zoom lenses that cover this FL and I used it mostly for landscape and large group of people despite tha fact I found sometimes too much distortion at the borders. 
I rather use the 35mm FL more often than the 24mm FL.


----------

