16-35mm vs. 20mm

[crm114]

Hi,

I need a wide angle lens and I'm agonizing over a decision to buy the $400 canon 20mm or ante up the extra $1000 for the 16-35 "L". Is there anyone who has had experience with both? Better yet- any comparison shots? I'm not interested in comparable Sigma lenses.

I'm aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both (e.g.-- sharper prime vs. wider/more versatile zoom,..etc.) so I guess what it comes down to is "how" much sharper is the prime vs. the zoom.

I'd appreciate any opinions from those who've tried both.
Thanks,
-Bob

P.S- it's for a D60 body

 

[Greg M]

I had a soft 16-35L and ended up with a Sigma 20 1.8. Get the prime. Anything longer I like zooms but wide I'd say primes.

 

[Max Savin]

Hi,
I need a wide angle lens and I'm agonizing over a decision to buy
the $400 canon 20mm or ante up the extra $1000 for the 16-35 "L".
Is there anyone who has had experience with both? Better yet- any
comparison shots? I'm not interested in comparable Sigma lenses.

I'm aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both (e.g.--
sharper prime vs. wider/more versatile zoom,..etc.) so I guess what
it comes down to is "how" much sharper is the prime vs. the zoom.

I'd appreciate any opinions from those who've tried both.
Thanks,
-Bob

P.S- it's for a D60 body

--

max..according to a recent article in luminous landscape the 16-35 was the equal of the 24mm prime. i have both of the lenses you are asking about. the 16-35 in my opinion is at least the equal of the 20mm and all the primes in its range. it weighs as much as all of them put togeth too. in the photozone ratings there are no outstanding or even excellent ratings for any wide angle lens from any manufacturer. probably has something to do with the physics of optics and light.

 

[lawdog]

You may not be interested in the Sigma lenses, but you should be. I went through this same situation a few weeks ago and decided to pick up the Sigma 15-30. It's the only non-Canon lens I own (see my profile) and it truly is a gem. Maybe someday I'll kick in for the 16-35L, but for now the Sigma gives me great pics and its 7mm wider than a 20mm prime, which makes a huge difference on the D60. You might be pleasantly surprised, I sure was.

John

Hi,
I need a wide angle lens and I'm agonizing over a decision to buy
the $400 canon 20mm or ante up the extra $1000 for the 16-35 "L".
Is there anyone who has had experience with both? Better yet- any
comparison shots? I'm not interested in comparable Sigma lenses.

I'm aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both (e.g.--
sharper prime vs. wider/more versatile zoom,..etc.) so I guess what
it comes down to is "how" much sharper is the prime vs. the zoom.

I'd appreciate any opinions from those who've tried both.
Thanks,
-Bob

P.S- it's for a D60 body

--
max..according to a recent article in luminous landscape the 16-35
was the equal of the 24mm prime. i have both of the lenses you are
asking about. the 16-35 in my opinion is at least the equal of the
20mm and all the primes in its range. it weighs as much as all of
them put togeth too. in the photozone ratings there are no
outstanding or even excellent ratings for any wide angle lens from
any manufacturer. probably has something to do with the physics of
optics and light.

--

EOS D60, 50mm 1.8, Sigma 15-30, 28-135 IS, 100-400L IS, Bogen monopod, 380EX Speedlight, an old Pro90 in the trunk of my car (just in case) and a very happy trigger finger.

 

[Dave111337]

Hi,
I need a wide angle lens and I'm agonizing over a decision to buy
the $400 canon 20mm or ante up the extra $1000 for the 16-35 "L".
Is there anyone who has had experience with both? Better yet- any
comparison shots? I'm not interested in comparable Sigma lenses.

I'm aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both (e.g.--
sharper prime vs. wider/more versatile zoom,..etc.) so I guess what
it comes down to is "how" much sharper is the prime vs. the zoom.

I'd appreciate any opinions from those who've tried both.
Thanks,
-Bob

P.S- it's for a D60 body

Hi Bob:

I have been struggling with the same decision. I also have the D60 and my widest lens is the Canon 24mm 2.8. It certainly not wide for the D60 though and actually the 20mm really isn't that wide on the D60 (32mm) either. I also have the 28-70mm L, which I use most of the time. For me having the flexability of the zoom is really nice, even with the limited focal length of the 28-70mm. This lens has performed very well.

The bottom line is, Really I have been leaning towards the 16-35mm. Just for the flexibility of the zoom and the extra 4mm in focal length.

Dave
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=138954

 

[zidar]

I don't like the zooms cause they're too big and bulky. I use the 15 fisheye a lot. I also use the 20 2.8.

zidar
Alaska

--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

 

[Rico Tudor]

... in the photozone ratings there are no
outstanding or even excellent ratings for any wide angle lens from
any manufacturer. probably has something to do with the physics of
optics and light.

The top PhotoZone rating of "excellent" can be found next to quite a few WA lenses -- none from Canon. Inspect the database for Carl Zeiss C/Y mount, and rangefinder lenses (Leica M, you know).

I have the Carl Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (4.65 PhotoZone score). A brief optical test:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?message=4064408

I find the WA situation with EOS lenses to be surprisingly poor. The sensor crop with all Canon DSLRs (except 1Ds) makes the situation dire. I wish wide-angle prime development would get the same funding as the telephoto line. Imagine the EF 20/2 with the same build quality and optical design as the EF 135/2. Aspherics, UD, flourite, and damn the torpedoes!

And, no, I don't find the EF 24/1.4L to be remotely acceptable optically.

 

[Dave111337]

I don't like the zooms cause they're too big and bulky. I use the
15 fisheye a lot. I also use the 20 2.8.

zidar
Alaska

--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

Hi zidar:

I have considered the 15mm fisheye and I do plan to get it at some point. I have seen some of your samples (15mm fisheye) and they are very good indeed. (In fact your gallery is excellent.) I like to shoot mostly landscapes and I don't see many landscape shots in the galleries with the fisheye. The 20mm 2.8 would do well for landscapes. I believe you could buy the Fisheye and the 20mm for less then what the 16-35mm would cost. But of course you loose the zoom capability.

Dave (Alaska)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=138954
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=138954

 

[alanjs]

I agree the 16-35 is bulky, but it's a good lens and it gives you versatility. It's probably the lens I use most on the D60. You could always try and get a second-hand 20-35mm f2.8L - that was a really sharp lens.

If you like wide angles and don't mind the silly price, the Canon 14mm rectilinear works a treat on a D60.

Alan

I don't like the zooms cause they're too big and bulky. I use the
15 fisheye a lot. I also use the 20 2.8.

zidar
Alaska

--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

 

[Max Savin]

... in the photozone ratings there are no
outstanding or even excellent ratings for any wide angle lens from
any manufacturer. probably has something to do with the physics of
optics and light.

The top PhotoZone rating of "excellent" can be found next to quite
a few WA lenses -- none from Canon. Inspect the database for Carl
Zeiss C/Y mount, and rangefinder lenses (Leica M, you know).

I have the Carl Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (4.65 PhotoZone score). A
brief optical test:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?message=4064408
I find the WA situation with EOS lenses to be surprisingly poor.
The sensor crop with all Canon DSLRs (except 1Ds) makes the
situation dire. I wish wide-angle prime development would get the
same funding as the telephoto line. Imagine the EF 20/2 with the
same build quality and optical design as the EF 135/2. Aspherics,
UD, flourite, and damn the torpedoes!

And, no, I don't find the EF 24/1.4L to be remotely acceptable
optically.

--

max,,,i gorrect myself, there are no outstanding or excellent wide angle lenses available for 35mm mount single lens reflex cameras. it may be because of the mirror mechanism which does not allow the rear elements to extend into the camera body, ie closer to the "film" surface, in addition to the glass composition you mention. optical quality for slrs seems to come in at 50mm, peak at 300mm and then fade slightly into the 500-600mm range.

 

[Marc Brackhahn]

Hi,
I need a wide angle lens and I'm agonizing over a decision to buy
the $400 canon 20mm or ante up the extra $1000 for the 16-35 "L".
Is there anyone who has had experience with both? Better yet- any
comparison shots? I'm not interested in comparable Sigma lenses.

I'm aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both (e.g.--
sharper prime vs. wider/more versatile zoom,..etc.) so I guess what
it comes down to is "how" much sharper is the prime vs. the zoom.

I'd appreciate any opinions from those who've tried both.
Thanks,
-Bob

P.S- it's for a D60 body

Rumor has it that a Canon 17-35 (?) f/4.0 will be announced at PMA 2003!
So if I were you I'd wait!!

--

D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000, 24-70L, 70-200L IS, 100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and accessories.

 

[crm114]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions/comments. I checked out the reviews on luminous-landscape.com and that helped. I think I'll get the 16-35 although I'll definitely wait until after PMA if what the last poster said comes true.

Cheers,
-Bob

Hi,
I need a wide angle lens and I'm agonizing over a decision to buy
the $400 canon 20mm or ante up the extra $1000 for the 16-35 "L".
Is there anyone who has had experience with both? Better yet- any
comparison shots? I'm not interested in comparable Sigma lenses.

I'm aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both (e.g.--
sharper prime vs. wider/more versatile zoom,..etc.) so I guess what
it comes down to is "how" much sharper is the prime vs. the zoom.

I'd appreciate any opinions from those who've tried both.
Thanks,
-Bob

P.S- it's for a D60 body

Rumor has it that a Canon 17-35 (?) f/4.0 will be announced at PMA
2003!
So if I were you I'd wait!!

--
D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000, 24-70L, 70-200L IS, 100-400L IS,
50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm f/2, 200mm
f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod w/head, Bogen
monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and accessories.

 

[Max Savin]

... in the photozone ratings there are no
outstanding or even excellent ratings for any wide angle lens from
any manufacturer. probably has something to do with the physics of
optics and light.

The top PhotoZone rating of "excellent" can be found next to quite
a few WA lenses -- none from Canon. Inspect the database for Carl
Zeiss C/Y mount, and rangefinder lenses (Leica M, you know).

I have the Carl Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (4.65 PhotoZone score). A
brief optical test:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?message=4064408
I find the WA situation with EOS lenses to be surprisingly poor.
The sensor crop with all Canon DSLRs (except 1Ds) makes the
situation dire. I wish wide-angle prime development would get the
same funding as the telephoto line. Imagine the EF 20/2 with the
same build quality and optical design as the EF 135/2. Aspherics,
UD, flourite, and damn the torpedoes!

And, no, I don't find the EF 24/1.4L to be remotely acceptable
optically.

--
max,,,i gorrect myself, there are no outstanding or excellent wide
angle lenses available for 35mm mount single lens reflex cameras.
it may be because of the mirror mechanism which does not allow the
rear elements to extend into the camera body, ie closer to the
"film" surface, in addition to the glass composition you mention.
optical quality for slrs seems to come in at 50mm, peak at 300mm
and then fade slightly into the 500-600mm range.

--

max..considering the very high quality photos that can be produced by the 1ds/16-36 combination who would be willing to pay the price for leica or zeiss lenses at $2000+ per pop even if they were available to dslr users?

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

...at the moment, I have both lenses. It's verya difficult to make a decision, and I haven't taken enough pictures with the 20mm to really get to know that lens. Anyway, here my impressions.

Given its price, I'm "disappointed" with the 16-35. On the other hand, I strongly believe that the 16-35mm is as good a super wide angle zoom one can build for a SLR camera. I wouldn't bother too much about sharpness: Both lenses are not that great (compared to primes / good zooms at other focal lengths), and the 16-35mm is an outright catastrophy at around 28mm wide open. Further, I can't assess corner sharpenss of any of the lenses on a D30; I would expect the 16-35mm to be better, given that the 16-35mm seems to shine in comparison with other lenses discussde on http://www.luminous-landscape.com .

On the other hand, there are other issues: distortion (20mm very good, 16-35mm good -> a problem that can be corrected in PS anyway; not that important), CA (a lot of info was published on http://www.luminous-landscape.com just recently; 16-35mm very good, 20mm not so good), flare (20mm good, 16-35mm good -> is an issue at very wide angles anyway; always use lens hood, give additional shade with your spare hand, don't use filters), weight (16-35mm is very heavy compared to the 20mm), AF (both very good, 16-35mm a bit more responsive, maybe).

I really can't make up which lens to keep. Eventually, I will stick to the 16-35mm because it seems to look better the smaller the focal length multiplier of the camera. So it actually might be a better "long-term investement". On the other hand, it's soooo bl0ddy expensive...

Andi

--
http://www.andreassteiner.net/photography

 

[JustBob]

I used the 20 mm for about a year. I bought the 16-35 mainly because I needed wider coverage for home interiors.

I got a lot more than that. The contrast, color and sharpness are a world apart from the 20. When I read comments like those above I wonder if I just got a super good copy or something.

I no longer have the 20, so I can't do direct comparison shots.

If you can afford it, go for the L. Ask anyone if they are sorry they bought an L lens. Not likely!

 

[FUCK DPREVIEW!!]

...contrast, color...

...that. The 16-35mm is great in this respect, better than the 20mm.

Andi

--
http://www.andreassteiner.net/photography

 

[Buchan-Grant]

I used the 20mm for 6 months and then got the 16-35 for the extra coverage and the flexibility. If you take landscapes then the 16-35 is invaluable. Its a better lens in terms of contrast and just as sharp as the 20mm. I haven't had the 20 on my camera since (but have not got round to selling it yet!)

I'm not in a position to do tests (there are plenty out there) but you wont be disapointed with the zoom

Neil
http://buchangrant.ezhoster.com/bgp/

 

[Buchan-Grant]

I think that the distortion (perspective) at 20mm is better on the zoom strangely enough

I used the 20mm for 6 months and then got the 16-35 for the extra
coverage and the flexibility. If you take landscapes then the 16-35
is invaluable. Its a better lens in terms of contrast and just as
sharp as the 20mm. I haven't had the 20 on my camera since (but
have not got round to selling it yet!)

I'm not in a position to do tests (there are plenty out there) but
you wont be disapointed with the zoom

Neil
http://buchangrant.ezhoster.com/bgp/

--
Neil
http://buchangrant.ezhoster.com/bgp/