Canon 20mm F2.8 USM

[drisley]

I was looking for a wide angle companion for my soon-to-be 135 F2L.
I thought about the 17-40L, but since I rarely shoot wide angle, and want something "just-in-case", I would rather have something smaller and cheaper.
I came across the Canon 20mm F2.8 USM, and I've read mainly favourable reviews. It even has full-time manual focus. It also uses the same 72mm filters as the 135 F2L which is great! It's also almost $400 CDN cheaper than the 17-40L.

Anybody have/use this lens? Any opinions?
Thanks in advance!

[FrenchAmateur]

I can just write that this lens has an excellent reputation and has been tested with very good results.

[drisley]

Thanks, I guess it isnt a very popular lens though

[slejhamer]

Dris, it gets a "good" score on photozone, which unfortunately is not too interesting to many people nowadays. I had considered it, but am opting for the 17-40 zoom instead as I want the extra 3mm (which is like 5mm on the 10D.)

Here are some interesting shots; the ones that specify 20mm were taken with that lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/A17/

And the reviews seem to be all over the place, ranging from great to unacceptable:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=28&sort=7&thecat=2

[rick barclay]

Wow! Wow! Wow! To those Rashaida pics, slejhamer.

How on earth did you get them to consent? I tried photographing a
Cherokee indian in North Caroline, and he said, "No way!"

[velvetjones]

I have the 20mm and used it all the time for a little over a year until I got the 17-40L recently. I am a pretty big wide angle fan....It is a great lens, I really don't have anything negative to say about it. I have had some great results with it for sure, but I don't use it as much because of the 17-40...although I will probably hang on to it in case I need the extra stop sometime in that wide range.

[drisley]

Yes, wow to those pictures! :shock:
Absolutely stunning indeed!

The reviews are what make it hard to decide on this lens because, as you said, there is a WIDE range of opinions on this lens.

Velvetjones, on a scale of 1-10 for image quality, how would you compare the 20mm and the 17-40mm?

I know that the 17-40L is proven, and liked by virtually everyone that uses it, but I would like something smaller and cheaper since I dont use wide angle much. I wonder if the 20mm is even an improvement over the 300D kit lens?

[FrenchAmateur]

I have the tests in front of me :

20 mm :
2,8 : center : good ; corners (I mean "not the center") : average
4,5 : center : very good ; corners : average
5,6 : center : excellent ; corners : good
8 : center : excellent ; corners : good

Distorsion : 0, 3%

17-40 mm :

At 20 mm :
4 : center : good ; corners :average
5,6 : center : very good ; corners : good
8 : center : very good ; corners : very good
11 : center : very good ; corners : good

From 17 to 40 mm it's more or less the same, with a distorsion of 0, 5% at 20 mm

[roanjohn]

The prime should be sharper...........

But the 17-40 is a better value in the long run:

1. Its an "L"
2. Its like having a 17, 20, 24, 28, 35 and 40 prime lenses.

On a 1.6 crop factor, sometimes 17 is not wide enough for me. But then I shoot a lot of landscape with good light so your style might be different from mine.

Ro1

[drisley]

Thanks for the info Frenchie, very helpful!

Good points roanjohn. I guess the 17-40L would definately be the way to go if you shoot wide alot.
But it's rare for me, so I like something small and the 20mm seems to fit the bill.

Decisions decisions!

[slejhamer]

Rick, they are not mine! I wish they were! Mark Pelletier is the photog. But you are right, they are amazing pics.

Interestingly, another forum member (eland) sent that site to me a while ago as a reference to what a good photog can do with lenses considered by some to be mediocre.

Dris, I feel your pain. Seeing those pics again makes me think that the 20mm prime would be sufficient. I really like the convenience of the zoom though, and as roanjohn points out it's really like a combination of several lenses. From my standpoint, I'd want 17, 20 and 24mm primes to complement my 28-75 standard lens, so getting the 17-40 is in part an economic decision for me. Also, the 20mm is reportedly more prone to flare, and does not come standard with a lens hood. YMMV. :D

[Tom W]

Drisley, - FYI, I did a bit of testing on the Sigma 20 mm today. Here's the link:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37474

I'm keeping my 17-40 for certain. I'm not sure yet on the 20 mm.

[velvetjones]

To be honest, I am still shooting film, so I can' say for sure what the difference would be on a DSLR.

BUT, the 20mm is a great lens and I would give it an 8 out of 10. Funny, but I haven't gotten enough developed from the 17-40 yet to totally judge it yet. Boy does that make me feel silly. If the images are similar in sharpness (being a prime vs. an L) the 20mm is about half of the 17-40, but the zoom is really handy.

So if you aren' t going to use it that much, then I would the 20 might be alright....but it wouldn't be that wide on a DSLR either. Hmmmm....I have so much catching up to do!

[velvetjones]

Half in $ that is.....

[drisley]

Thanks for all the info everybody.
Lots to con$ider...

[FrenchAmateur]

.. and with the 1,6 crop factor, you have mostly to consider the optical quality in the center in tests...
Advantage to the 20 mm in quality in my view...