Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 06 Oct 2010 (Wednesday) 12:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 20mm vs. canon 28mm

 
dtufino
Goldmember
4,040 posts
Likes: 604
Joined Apr 2006
Location: New York Gritty
     
Oct 06, 2010 12:22 |  #1

looking for a nice wider lens... my two top choices are:

Canon 20mm f/2.8
Canon 28mm f/1.8
Sigma 20mm f/1.8

i know the 28 is faster @ 1.8 but i will be using it at f4+ for portraitures and some landscapes... looking to use it as an all around lenses and to also shoot some models....

i'm leaving towards the 20mm... thoughts...


-David T.
www.dtufinophoto.com (external link)

@dtufino_photo (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,735 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Oct 06, 2010 13:52 |  #2

Landscapes, portraits, F/4+?

I would get a 17-40L, even more so considering you have the 70-200 F/4L and 50 F/1.4 too - good threesome. Slightly more expensive, but better than the 20 F/2.8, and from 23 mm to 30 mm or thereabouts at F/8 as good as the 28 F/1.8, and maybe even better.

As an allround lens on the 7D I would choose the 28 F/1.8, however, or if you are a Sigma fan, I would probably add the Sigma 30 F/1.4 to the list.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 2 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, PhaseOne DF & P45+, SK 80 LS & 3 Mamiya primes, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,532 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Oct 06, 2010 14:04 |  #3

The 28mm 2.8 is just as sharp as the 28mm 1.8, if you don't need the 1.8, and its rediculously cheap. The 2.8 has great center sharpness even wide open. Another consideration is the 24mm 2.8. Its rated higher than the 20mm 2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jethro790
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Southern New Hampshire
     
Oct 06, 2010 15:26 as a reply to  @ nightcat's post |  #4

On a 7d, I love my 28 1.8. But as said, you can save a few dollars with the 2.8 version.


If you must know...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fobCSVT
Member
101 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Trois-Rivières, Qc
     
Oct 06, 2010 19:45 |  #5

The Canon 20mm does not offer a spectacular IQ. Unless you absolutely need 20mm I'd go towards the 28mm f/1.8 or save a little more and go 17-40mm f/4L




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
schmalpal
Member
160 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Oct 07, 2010 00:29 as a reply to  @ fobCSVT's post |  #6

I've owned both the 20/2.8 and 28/1.8 - they're both pretty damn lackluster in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color rendition (given their $400+ price and relatively large size/weight, and the fact that they're primes).

On the other hand, I've owned a 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 - both were sharper and had way punchier colors/contrast. My personal favorite is the 24/2.8 - it's an old design but very solid. It's small, cheap (around $250 used), and it has a hard infinity focus stop which is fantastic for landscapes.

If you must go with 28, do the 2.8 - I got mine for $140 used and it was a charming little thing. I believe it's Canon's 2nd smallest lens after the 50/1.8 II - the focusing sounds like a dentist's drill but it took some great shots for me. It is pretty cheaply constructed though, very plasticky - definitely go with at least the 24 if this matters to you.

Keep in mind 28 is really not that wide on crop - this is another reason I prefer the 24. Also, the 28/2.8 does kind of suck at blocking flare - I had to do a lot of flare blocking with my hands, after getting used to the built-in blockers in the 28/1.8.

I'd also consider the 17-40mm f/4L or EF-S 10-22mm if you're going to be using it at f/4+ for landscapes - they're damn sharp, and the wide end will be much appreciated, trust me (after owning all these primes and loving them, I ended up with a 10-22 for the ultra-wide angle, and the 22 end is still close to the 24 that I loved so much).

Here's some stuff I took with the 24 (some of my best work):
http://www.flickr.com …malpal/tags/can​onef24f28/ (external link)

Some shots with the 10-22 (only had it for about a week but I'm loving it already and you can see the colors and sharpness are awesome):
http://www.flickr.com …l/tags/efs1022m​mf3545usm/ (external link)

Here's some from the 28 2.8:
http://www.flickr.com …malpal/tags/can​onef28f28/ (external link)

Here's a few 28 1.8 shots (best thing about it was that I was able to do the milky way shot at 1.8 - but it was nowhere near sharp, as with any shot at 1.8 on this lens):
http://www.flickr.com …pal/tags/canone​f28f18usm/ (external link)

And a single 20 2.8 shot (took a lot of coaxing in the sharpness/color/contra​st departments, and the lack of a hard infinity focus stop was just annoying for manual focus):
http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157624281014309/ (external link)

So, here are what my choices would be for you, in order:
24/2.8 - $250 used - small, solid build, hard infinity focus, will share 58mm filters with your 50/1.4 and 85/1.8

EF-S 10-22 - $550 used - light, solid build, smooth zoom/focus rings, fast/quiet focus, very sharp for a zoom, ultra-wide is addicting and stunning if used right, not much bigger than a 20 2.8 and I believe lighter weight, very low distortion at the 22mm end would be good for portraits and 10mm would surely be used for landscapes once you saw it in action

17-40 4L - $550 used - best build quality (very solid and smooth), very sharp for a zoom, but not amazingly wide on your 7D and you probably wouldn't use the long end as much if you have the 50 1.4

28/2.8 - $150 used - do this instead of the 1.8 and save yourself some money toward yet another lens, but I still think the 24 is a better option

28/1.8 - $400 used - don't buy this lens unless you need f/1.8


alexnoriegaphotography​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MrLA
Senior Member
Avatar
727 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
     
Oct 07, 2010 00:54 |  #7

actually, 20 f2.8 USM is a pretty darn good lens for the price comparing to 16-35L f2.8 if you can't afford or don't want to pay the price of the L. none of cheap primes has USM, except the 20mm f2.8 USM. in another word, if u want 16-35L but can't afford, get the 20mm prime.


Body: Canon 5Dc, (Coming soon <<<6Dc, maybe I shall wait for 6Diic with TouchScreen!).
Other Favorite Camera:
Flash: YN560
Lenses: change all the time!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
schmalpal
Member
160 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Oct 07, 2010 01:07 |  #8

MrLA wrote in post #11049987 (external link)
actually, 20 f2.8 USM is a pretty darn good lens for the price comparing to 16-35L f2.8 if you can't afford or don't want to pay the price of the L. none of cheap primes has USM, except the 20mm f2.8 USM. in another word, if u want 16-35L but can't afford, get the 20mm prime.

If you want the 16-35 but can't afford it, get the 17-40. The 20mm is no better than the 17-40 in really any department optically other than max aperture, and it's barely better price-wise.


alexnoriegaphotography​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MrLA
Senior Member
Avatar
727 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
     
Oct 07, 2010 01:11 |  #9

17-40L f4 feels like cotton, light weight -fragile. if u want f2.8 u have got f2.8, there is no substitute for it.


Body: Canon 5Dc, (Coming soon <<<6Dc, maybe I shall wait for 6Diic with TouchScreen!).
Other Favorite Camera:
Flash: YN560
Lenses: change all the time!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
schmalpal
Member
160 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Oct 07, 2010 01:40 |  #10

MrLA wrote in post #11050070 (external link)
17-40L f4 feels like cotton, light weight -fragile. if u want f2.8 u have got f2.8, there is no substitute for it.

If the 17-40 feels fragile to you, try holding the 20 2.8. Just because a lens is heavy doesn't mean it's solid - the 17-40 has a nicer build than the 20.

Additionally, the OP said he would be using it at f/4 or smaller - obviously max aperture would normally be the advantage of the 20 there. Don't get me wrong, I love fast primes - but on a crop sensor you don't have many choices from Canon without spending 1k+, since the 20 kind of sucks. For me it's the 24, 10-22, or 17-40 in the sub-600 price range.


alexnoriegaphotography​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MrLA
Senior Member
Avatar
727 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
     
Oct 08, 2010 20:01 |  #11

oh, op said f4 requirement? my bad.


Body: Canon 5Dc, (Coming soon <<<6Dc, maybe I shall wait for 6Diic with TouchScreen!).
Other Favorite Camera:
Flash: YN560
Lenses: change all the time!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DisrupTer911
Goldmember
Avatar
2,452 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ, USA
     
Oct 08, 2010 20:06 |  #12

I've been using my 20/2.8 on my 30D, 1D2 and 1Ds2 and on the 1Ds it's wide enough for everything I shoot and stopped down to f/5.6-8 it's very sharp. At 2.8-4 it's stl kind of sloppy at the corners close up to objects.

I use it for general walkaround but specifically during static car shoots.


www.vividemotionphotograph​y.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MrLA
Senior Member
Avatar
727 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2007
     
Oct 08, 2010 20:10 |  #13

it does definitely have great color renditon to my eyes.


Body: Canon 5Dc, (Coming soon <<<6Dc, maybe I shall wait for 6Diic with TouchScreen!).
Other Favorite Camera:
Flash: YN560
Lenses: change all the time!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ekean
Member
Avatar
111 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Oct 08, 2010 20:13 as a reply to  @ DisrupTer911's post |  #14

I.M.O. the 20 is a nice wide angle. 28 on the cropped 7d isn't a wide angle after the crop factor.

I'm looking to sell my Canon 20mm f/2.8

I shoot a 1D mark iii, so It's a good walk around lens, but I need a little wider lens and L glass.


PM if you're interested in my lens.


Nikon D3s | Nikon 20 f/1.8g | Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art | Nikon 85 f/1.8g |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,391 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 20mm vs. canon 28mm
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is chukwuebukaonwuneme
1208 guests, 200 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.