Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM

[lmitch6]

Hey all,

In case anyone is looking at this lens, here are a couple images from mine (picked it up today):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lmitch/256073859/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lmitch/256073827/

[4x4rock]

I used to have this lens for a short period and sold it as I already have the Tokina 12-24. A few people knocked this lens for its IQ but I found it to be pretty good and 20mm is plenty wide.

Here's a almost portrair shot :)

http://www.sonnycao.com/gallery/albums/49ers-8-15-06/IMG_6639.jpg

[Jaetie]

I used to have this lens for a short period and sold it as I already have the Tokina 12-24. A few people knocked this lens for its IQ but I found it to be pretty good and 20mm is plenty wide.

Here's a almost portrair shot :)

http://www.sonnycao.com/gallery/albums/49ers-8-15-06/IMG_6639.jpg

:shock: haha

[lmitch6]

Dang, wish I could have found a test subject like that! :-) So far, I think it'll fall under the category of underrated lenses. I find my copy to be plenty sharp and a good performer!

[Jaetie]

do you find the f/2.8 limiting?
or do you use it only in good lighting?

[lmitch6]

I don't do a lot of low light shooting, but I was tinkering around with it last night in my living room, which is lit by one lamp. At f/2.8, a bump in ISO seemed prudent to get a good shutter speed. So, depending on the light levels on is shooting under, it isnt' that limiting.

[ed rader]

do you find the f/2.8 limiting?
or do you use it only in good lighting?

personally i'd have a hard time buying an f2.8 prime unless it was an unusual length like, say, 15mm.

ed rader

[cdifoto]

personally i'd have a hard time buying an f2.8 prime unless it was an unusual length like, say, 15mm.

ed rader

My thoughts as well. For me, the point of a prime is that extra speed.

[ed rader]

My thoughts as well. For me, the point of a prime is that extra speed.

an exception is if you shoot mostly or only with primes, which i believe the OP does.

ed rader

[lmitch6]

an exception is if you shoot mostly or only with primes, which i believe the OP does.

ed rader

That's me. I only shoot primes. I started with them 20-odd years ago, and do my best work with them. Now, I'm not anti-zoom, but I do prefer the smaller size and lighter weight of a prime to a zoom of comparable image quality. Another thing is that my shooting doesn't necessitate having every focal length, 20mm to 85mm is my 'zone' so to say.

[KevC]

I wonder how the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 compares. It's more than stop faster... I'd really appreciate the speed.

I love the 20mm focal length... it'd be useful both on a 1.6x and 1.3x crop body for me =)

[lmitch6]

I dunno about the Sigma. I looked at some reviews on Fred Miranda and it seems kind of hit or miss. I don't trust reviews much though, I like to try things out for myself before making a judgement. One recurring thing I see on that one is the 82mm filter diameter, those filters are kinda pricey!

[Quad]

I dunno about the Sigma. I looked at some reviews on Fred Miranda and it seems kind of hit or miss. I don't trust reviews much though, I like to try things out for myself before making a judgement. One recurring thing I see on that one is the 82mm filter diameter, those filters are kinda pricey!


But then what filters do you need. UV for protection for those who crawl through rose bushes. A polarizer will work in far too funky a manner to be much more than a special effects filter. What other filters do people use anymore?

I would like to try the Sigmas myself from everything I have read wide open it is a soft focus lens and so wide open helps with focus then you stop down to 2.8 or so for a sharp pic. I agree that reviews are to be held with caution. The 20 Canon seems to get slagged a lot as well. The photos above and by the OP look fine over the web at least.

[lmitch6]

Well, I'm 'old school' I guess, in that I still use filters quite a bit. A polarizer of course, and I keep a set of ND filters. The only filters I've dropped since my film days are colored filters for Black & White photography. I know a lot of people use photoshop for filter effects these days, but I shot film for much longer than digital, so 'old habits die hard', so to speak.

[Dante King]

:shock: haha

Damn, that 20mm makes her breasts look HUGE!

[cdifoto]

Damn, that 20mm makes her breasts look HUGE!


Dante, her breasts make her breasts look huge. :)

[Jaetie]

personally i'd have a hard time buying an f2.8 prime unless it was an unusual length like, say, 15mm.

ed rader

me too.

and you know, 15mm f/2.8 ain't that attractive when you've got the 16-35L. haha, yea, fisheye.

[René Damkot]

Dante, her breasts make her breasts look huge. :)

And here I am thinking "pilow distortion" :lol:

[JMHPhotography]

:lol: pervs

[kwsanders]

I used to have this lens for a short period and sold it as I already have the Tokina 12-24. A few people knocked this lens for its IQ but I found it to be pretty good and 20mm is plenty wide.

Here's a almost portrair shot :)

http://www.sonnycao.com/gallery/albums/49ers-8-15-06/IMG_6639.jpg


You didn't really give much of a review on it here. There has to be at least two reasons why you like this lens so much. :lol: :cool:

[aparmley]

Just curious . . . Whats the real world difference between a 20mm prime at 2.8 and 1.8. What will people use this lens for primarily and will 1.8 better aid this lens in its effective usefulness?

I mean when you have such a popular WA zoom as the 17-40 at F4, clearly there are a lot of people who don't think that 2.8 is necessary for a zoom in this range. seeing that the 20mm prime falls into the range of this zoom, is it possible to conclude that those who find the ~20mm F4 range on the 17-40 useful and more than fast enough, they will find the 20 2.8 prime has more than enough speed for their uses?

I'm not saying 1.8 wouldn't be useful at times, but really. . . does something this wide really need 1.8? I'd like to hear from those that think you need more speed what type of situation would you really find it useful?

[4x4rock]

You didn't really give much of a review on it here. There has to be at least two reasons why you like this lens so much. :lol: :cool:


LOL ...

Honestly I didnt use it enough to give it a fair review. For the few times I used it, it worked great.

With the Tokina, I don't want to keep both eventhough the Tokina is about to be listed too as I don't use WA very often. But I'm sure I'll miss it when it was gone.

[René Damkot]

does something this wide really need 1.8?
Sometimes it does:

Sigma 20/1.8: ISO 3200; f/1.8; 1/6s
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/Rock_ON_Roll/source/image/rhd20060428r_on_r0010.jpg

[Jaetie]

nice shots. i really like the colours.

[genewch]

Very nice picture really.

That's what I look for, a wide angle lens faster than f/2.8. The comments of Canon 20mm seems not to be on its par with other primes. Sigma 20mm has an attractive f/1.8, but its focusing handling is awful, a 2-step switching! I want a wide fast lens on a crop camera for night snapshots. The Canon 28mm f/1.8 is fast, but it's not wide on 1.6x crop cameras. I wish Canon could have produced something like the Sigma's 20mm or even wider.

[Kristian]

Don't think the lens has anything to say in this particular shot :lol:

[s8langwo]

I do not see the EOS 20mm f/2.8 listed in the lens archive section. Any experiences you are willing to share will be appreciated as I'm considering this lens in lieu of the 17-40mm f/4.0L.

Thanks Much!
Kevin

[In2Photos]

I would like to add this to the archive so please, share your pics.

[jdos2]

I had it for a while. Ended up selling it (and other bits) and getting the 16-35mm F/2.8.

The 20mm vignettes pretty strongly which can add a good bit to a shot, or take away a good bit. The lens was a loud focuser, and generally, the age of design was pretty obvious.

Then again, it wasn't that expensive, and I'd own it again. I've several nice shots with it: it had good color, and flare wasn't an issue.

[Boily]

Bump, I will like to see some pictures too !!

What does it look like on a 1.6x body ?

[RJC]

Here you go guys and gals. These were taken with a 20D, Im pretty sure they were all wide open. 2nd and last one is probably at ISO800. Hope they help.

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5450/flowerhq9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3705/casinoui9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3705/casinoui9.612dfeed4f.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=530&i=casinoui9.jpg)

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1403/freemontmj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[gasrocks]

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/
Might be some here.

[rattymouse]

Please allow me to start off this archive thread.....

f/11

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2333/1626513409_f6a4a8a3b0_b.jpg


f/11

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/1565549800_7a292ae1c3_b.jpg

[TheHoff]

It is short but it does already exist in the archive list...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=410053

[rattymouse]

It is short but it does already exist in the archive list...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=410053


Rats, I searched but nothing came up. Oh well.....I wanted to support an underrated lens.

[rattymouse]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/2624455126_0286d2d68e_b.jpg

[rattymouse]

f/4

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/2627926256_dcd7ee057c_b.jpg

[Cl!ckFoto]

i think ratty just sold me on this lens for the 5D

[rattymouse]

i think ratty just sold me on this lens for the 5D



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/3733418981_a0e3188df4_o.jpg

[tupper]

Anyone got anymore to add? Or stories to tell?