20mm f/2.8d vs 24mm f/2.8d

Has anyone used either the 20mm or 24mm f/2.8d lens? I'm looking use for landscapes as well as wide angle portraits.

thank you.

I am on the fence about a landscape lens too. My current workflow is to use a Sigma 28-70 2.8 in a combination of HDR and panorama. It if far more complicated that using a dedicated lens.
Have you tired renting them before you buy?

I owned the 20mm 2.8D and the 24mm 2.8 AIS, I believe the AIS and the D version are the same optical design so the results should be the same. The 20mm 2.8D was a good lens on both DX and FX for me. It's a great focal length and did well with portraits up close. The 24mm 2.8 AIS was better in terms of sharpness, but had less contrast then the 20mm, and wasn't as pleasing globally. I learned pretty early on that the 24mm 2.8 had some really nasty field curvature issues up close for portraits. I would not recommend the 24mm if you're going to be shooting people off center or relatively close up, it stretches faces a lot. I don't own either lens anymore, I upgraded to the new 20mm 1.8G and didn't need the similar focal lengths. If I was choosing between the 20mm 2.8D and the 24mm 2.8D, I'd go with the 20mm.

Hope that helps,

Adam

I would go with the 20mm as well. I find it sharper, many more keeper shots with it vs 24mm. Keep an eye out for haze in the 20mm.

20mm was a great lens on my film bodies, FX90 etc. I ended up having another on newer dSLR bodies. However, this time this prime turns me down for lack of contrast and resolution. Newer lenses are always better. The 24 AIS, which I used only once, has become a permanent resident in my lens cabinet.