Manufacturing difficulties in producing 24mm primes?

TWG

Kinda understand that it is difficult to make good wide angles. One thing that struck me recently, though, was that it seemed more difficult to make a 24 mm prime than a 20mm. No, nobody has said so specifically, it is just something I surmised from reviews of 24mm primes and the stellar reception of the new Nikon 20mm prime.

Quite possibly I am just inferring things incorrectly. Even then I would like to hear people about it.

WestEndFoto

The 24 1.4G was released when the highest resolution sensor was less than 20mp. I am hoping that the next generation will be sharper. It had better be, or they will let Sigma eat their lunch. Also, the primes should be a lot better than the zooms then they are.

TWG

Very curious about that one too.

My question may be coming out of the blue. So I add some context from which I arrived to my (shaky) conclusion.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/just-the-lenses-sigma-24-f1-4-art-comparison

"In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true."

What's also possible is that we just have different technical criteria for 20mm primes. We simply expect different things from 24mm primes, that are more useful for non-architecture/landscape things, but those things are also more critical in general aspects.

I am not gonna bite. Let me know.

kenadams

"In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true."

That should also imply that the best 200mm 2.8 is an 85mm with a few steps forward. But it is not always that simple..

TWG

True, you are totally right. A 35mm is never gonna give me the kind of shots that a 24mm will. Perspective distortion is different.

Yet, I am still puzzled. I appreciate the feedback and the effort. But I haven't gotten an answer to my question.

It was implicit, but yes, my question could have been wrong all along. That's okay. It is just about my peace of mind.

spraynpray

One thing is certain - you should never take anybodies word for whether a lens is what you need. They may be well meaning, but that doesn't mean they are right. Manufacturers don't know the extent of your aspirations and so my market a 20mm as 'negligible aberrations' but your experiences may be different. Mine were. Use an outlet with a good return policy and try it out. I rejected the Sigmas and the Nikon 20 before I got something good enough (for the prime reason for I bought it).

Pistnbroke

buy a 14mm Samyang stand still and crop...
Seriously if a brilliant 14mm can be made for $300 why should there be technical problems with a 20mm?
All lenses are designed on a computer so the perfromance is known before anyting is made and more important so is the cost.

WestEndFoto

I just bought the 24 2.8 AIS. Works great at f/8 shooting scales on a tripod.

This filled the gaping hole that I had between 20 and 28mm that the Titanic would fit through (my 14-24 is really a 14mm prime). Now I have the gaping hole between 28 and 40mm which will fit a Nimitz class carrier. Sigh.....the 35mm 2.8AIS does not get me that excited. Performance is meh like my 20mm 2.8 AIS - but I really needed a 20. Hmm....the 35 is not that bad and is perhaps THE classic 35mm lens.

What to do?