...JD, I completely understand, we all have our own tastes when it comes to focal length. I have the same feeling 'could go wider' when I use 35mm and have never loved it, even though it's a classic FL for many people. For me, I feel that 24mm is the widest you can go without unrealistic perspective distortion and I like the challenge of composing this wide.
Not to be a dissenter... but 24mm hasn't appealed to me at all. Mind you, I've only shot at f4... so maybe at wider aperture it looks better... when I do use 24, I think... probably could go wider... I can't imagine having a prime lenses at 24... and I'm saying this with all due respect...
The way to use a 24mm is to get up close to the subject. I agree that 24mm is the widest you can go and still have relatively realistic distortion. While 24mm is not for everything, I've found that it's great for paddock photo's at the racetrack for instance. The 24mm really adds wide-angle drama without going to extremes. When you cannot or don't want to get up too close, 35mm is the better alternative.
And FWIW I never thought about the 24mm focal length much until I decided to buy a prime - that changes the game(and understanding of the focal length) entirely because in a zoom, 24mm is probably the widest you can go and in that case, yes usually the thought is 'I probably could go wider'.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 03:41:39 PM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, G16 | EF: SY14/2.8, V20/3.5, 24/2.8, 35/2, Ʃ35/1.4, 50/1.8, Ʃ50/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 2.0x III, 70-300L, T28-300 Di VC PZD | E: SY12/2, 35/1.8 OSS, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, SY300/6.3 ED UMC CS, Metabones SB | Vintage FD & FL glass.