Canon 20mm

I know there were already many discussions about wide-angle lenses.
Many searches on this forum, did not gave me an answer on my question.

I own the Canon28-135, but I really miss a wide-angle. I want to buy the 17-40mm or the 20mm. I think I'll go for the 20mm because it is a light and small lens and the fact that it is a 2.8.

Is there anyone who only has the 20mm as wide-angle lens? Do you miss the the possibility to zoom? Is it enough.

Thanks for your replies.

I own Sigmas 15-30mm and Sigmas 20mm.
Before I got the 20mm I've used the 15-30mm 95% at 15mm.

Now the 20mm stays on the camera all the time and the zoom is only used when I REALY need the 15mm.
Regards,
tc

wim_d said:

I know there were already many discussions about wide-angle lenses.
Many searches on this forum, did not gave me an answer on my question.

I own the Canon28-135, but I really miss a wide-angle. I want to
buy the 17-40mm or the 20mm. I think I'll go for the 20mm because
it is a light and small lens and the fact that it is a 2.8.

Is there anyone who only has the 20mm as wide-angle lens? Do you
miss the the possibility to zoom? Is it enough.

Thanks for your replies.

Click to expand...

--
Some digital cameras, some lenses, 2 eyes

http://www.tom-crowning.com

Hm the 20mm/2.8 is IMO not really "light and small", it's about as large and heavy as the 85mm/1.8. Well ok, you could call it light and small compared to the Sigma 20mm/1.8. Anyways, it is my only wide angle lens and I would say yes, it is wide enough for most situations.

My experiences with the 20mm/2.8:

pros:

• USM
• 72mm filters
• F2.8 (+usable at this aperture)
• not too expensive
• low distortion
• very sharp in the center of the image..

negatives:

• ..but not the sharpest lens in the edges
• sometimes CA in the edges
• IMO a bit large for a wide angle
• flares sometimes pretty heavily
• 5-bladed diaphragm

Taken with the 20mm/2.8.

wim_d said:

I know there were already many discussions about wide-angle lenses.
Many searches on this forum, did not gave me an answer on my question.

I own the Canon28-135, but I really miss a wide-angle. I want to
buy the 17-40mm or the 20mm. I think I'll go for the 20mm because
it is a light and small lens and the fact that it is a 2.8.

Is there anyone who only has the 20mm as wide-angle lens? Do you
miss the the possibility to zoom? Is it enough.

Thanks for your replies.

Click to expand...

--
Keep it simple. -Alfred Eisenstaedt

I have it too, having seen the size of the sigma 15-30 I thought it was a 70-200 at first, it's HUGE!! I think for the money, the 20mm is great value but I would possibly consider a widerprime if funds allow.

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)

I own both the EF 20mm and the Sigma 12-24mm zoom. I have to say that I rarely use the 20mm despite its extra 2 stops compared to the Sigma. The problem is that The Sigma zoom outperforms the Canon in both sharpness and contrast, at least to my eyes. You can check the MTF chart of the 20mm on http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses and see for yourself that it is probably not Canon's sharpest lens.

Gordon S Walker said:

I have it too, having seen the size of the sigma 15-30 I thought it
was a 70-200 at first, it's HUGE!! I think for the money, the 20mm
is great value but I would possibly consider a widerprime if funds
allow.

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)

Click to expand...

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

wim_d said:

Is there anyone who only has the 20mm as wide-angle lens? Do you
miss the the possibility to zoom? Is it enough.

Click to expand...

I have the Canon 20mm 2.8 USM. In my opinion it is a very good lens. Excellent construction, high sharpness. Its only problem is a tendency flare when pointed towards the sun.

I have never wanted a zoom lens, and I am not willing to sacrifize quality for convenience. The 20mm prime is vastly sharper than the much overrated 28-135. Yes, I have tested the 28-135, and it is not an outstanding lens. Fair, but certainly far from level of good primes or L-zooms.

As to the question of whether it is enough wide angle: Yes, definitely. In many landscape situations with my 10D it is more than wide enough. I am not fond of extreme wide angles which dwarf everything but the foreground. They are fine for some architectural shots, but not for landscapes.

Here are some examples of what the Canon 20mm 2.8 USM can do:

http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_0283_RT16_800.jpg

(Too much wide angle, in my opinion. The sharpness is very high, as you can see.)

http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_2018_RT16_800.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/CRW_2021_RT16_800.jpg

I disagree with those who say that the Canon 20mm 2.8 USM is not sharp. It is high above any consumer zoom. However, if I complement the 10D with a camera with a larger sensor I will probably buy a 24mm 2.8. With a full frame or 1.3 crop factor the 20mm will be too wide for natural landscapes, but your mileage may vary.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

Well, you sharpened them quite a lot, that's what we can see here. I would be interested in some unsharpened 100% corner crops from F5.6 or F8, maybe you could show us some?

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

(Too much wide angle, in my opinion. The sharpness is very high, as
you can see.)

Click to expand...

--
Keep it simple. -Alfred Eisenstaedt