I can offer a couple of comments that might be useful. My comments below apply to full-frame film applications.
One one hand, if you need it there is no substitute for a larger aperture. If you do night-time indoor available light photography, the two additional stops can make a huge difference. Also, the 35mm can be shot at F2 to provide at least a some background blurring for certain subjects. On the other hand, 20mm is significantly wider than 24mm. I find that with outdoor landscapes 20mm may actually be too wide. In contrast, sometimes 24mm isn't wide enough for indoor stuff (architecture, people, etc.). I'm doing some work with fast lenses these days. In your place I would probably purchase the two primes or maybe a 20mm F2.8 and 35mm F2.0. For travel, there's no question that I would go with the 20-35mm zoom, however. --Mark > Hello > > I wonder if anyone can help me with a perhaps somewhat > strange comparison. I am considering the FA 20-35mm > f/4.0 AL versus the FA 35mm f/2.0 AL + FA 24mm f/2.0 > AL IF. > > I know this is not exactly a fair comparison the > zoom would give me a much wider 20mm instead of 24mm > and greater portability while the primes would give me > ultimate performance, much wider max apertures, and > cost a lot more but let me explain my reasoning. > Mainly I am debating the 20-35 versus the 35 (also an > admittedly "unfair" comparison) but since Ive also > always separately wanted the 24, I would probably > spring for the two lenses at once both the 35 and 24 > if I went the two-lens direction. Size and weight > is not an issue for me, really. Cost and max > apertures and the idea of switching lenses are all > potential issues, I suppose. Im not sure whether > 20mm versus 24mm is an issue for me...and I suppose I > could throw in the option of choosing the 35mm + the > 20mm f/2.8 (rather than the 24mm) but then the price > bumps up yet again and my choices only get harder when > really I am looking to narrow things down...plus I > never really lusted for the 20 the way I have for the > 24 (and these decisions often come down to simple > "lust" for me...I want to be really supergeeked about > what I am buying). > > Any thoughts on the relative merits of these lenses? > Ive read mainly positive about the 20-35, and only > positive about the 35. The 24 situation is odd > because I remember rave reviews (it was even voted > list favorite lens at one point) but then subsequently > Ive read more mixed reviews. (Interestingly, this > also happened with the 135mm f/2.8 and the 28-105mm > f/4-5.6 powerzoom they were first almost universally > loved and then later got somewhat more mixed reviews.) > > Thanks, > > Chaso
