20 or 28?

[mikolaj]

I would love to go with a 16-35, but the moolah... :(
So, a canon 20mm f2.8 or a fast 28 at 1.8? the price doesn't really matter for me on these lenses (i'm getting a good rebate with a few other stuff). i've got a 20D, and the damn conversion is getting to me. i could even go for the canon 15mm 2.8 (no USM).

what do you think? mostly for low-light interiors, group shots and scenery for weddings.
maybe a sigma somwhere?

[DocFrankenstein]

IMHO the 1.8 isn't very good quality

*Haven't used any of them, based on photo.com ratings only.

Cheers

[FlyingPete]

IMHO the 1.8 isn't very good quality

*Haven't used any of them, based on photo.com ratings only.

Cheers

Added to that, I find that I am more often requiring a wider angle than a narrower one, esspecially now with the dreaded x factor found on most D-SLR's

[pcasciola]

What about the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, or Tokina 17mm Pro?

[mikolaj]

hey, that tamron sounds interesting. anyone have photos they took with that lens?

[cosiecki]

How about the Sigma 20mm f1.8? I am looking into this lens and all the people I have talked to really like theirs. Its wide and its quite fast. The best part (I think) is that it's just under $400. Just my thought.

-Chris

[Citizensmith]

If you are looking for a 20 you'd be best off with the Sigma f/1.8 as the previous poster mentioned. The Canon 20 f/2.8 is actually pretty weak for a prime. For instance the 17-40 is optically better than it in pretty much every way. If you are after a 28 then the Canon 28 f/2.8 rates considerably higher than the f/1.8.

If you are looking for a good walkaround prime either get the Sigma 20 f/1.8 or look at the Canon 24 f/2.8. I've got the Canon 24 and despite also owning a 17-40 it still gets a fair bit of use due to its dimunative size and general ease of use.

[Olegis]

What about the ... Tokina 17mm Pro?

Very nice lens, thank you :cool:
I posted some examples here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=388946#post388946).