How come the canon 20mm EF f/2.8 USM lens isn't popular?

I've been wondering about this, how come not many photographer has this wide lens and instead have the 17-40 or the 16-35 ultra wide?

Should I sale my lens and look into one of these lens?

Probably because 20mm is not nearly as wide as 16 or 17mm... That 3-4mm is a huge difference on the wide end.

It's popular with me!

I had one, and it was always soft for me. I couldn't get a sharp image no matter what i did. I understand that I just probably had a bad copy, but I got rid of it and happy I did. I just use 16-35L (you can buy one lightly used for $1200)

Amfoto1! I love your pictures! Now I just wish mine had the same outcome LOL... did you use a filter and hood? And what's the setting for those images?

IMHO, the utility of a prime is the availability of a wide-open aperture, for use when needed. f/2.8 is the realm of high-quality zooms, and so if I were asked to spend $500 on a single-FL f/2.8 or ~$1200 for a (used) 16-35L II, or less than $1000 for a used 16-35L mk I or 17-35L, I might be tempted to go with one of the zooms.

On top of that, EF-S body owners can get one of many f/2.8 zooms that cover that range nicely.

And Sigma offers a f/1.8 20mm prime, for about the same price. That's over a whole stop better. I cannot comment on the comparative quality of the optics between the two lenses. (Makes mental note to troll through Image Archive later tonight...)

So I think it is just a niche lens that has its uses, but that many folks will not find the need to pay to own.

Now if it was f/1.8 or even lower, that would be a different story (and price-point). A Canon 20mm f/1.4 L, yeah baby!

shinksma

I have one and I like it. It's a decent UWA that doesn't cost nearly as much as the other f/2.8 options. Not the best lens ever, but it covers the range when I need it. It's not very popular for lack of convenience; most people don't "see" 20mm very well. The zooms give you more framing options.

Sigh... So what would you guys do in my situation? Sell it for the 17-40 or 16-35 or keep it?

If it's working fine for you, keep it. That's my plan at least.

I like the 20mm focal length but with the current lens there are too few advantages compared to Zoom Lenses.
I'm really hoping we'll see a 20mm IS USM prime I would get it immediately

I'd say costing at least less than half of what the comparable zoom lenses cost is a BIG advantage.

Hmm, you don't have a WA zoom lens in your current gear. But you had one when you had a crop body, according to your gear list. How useful did you find the zoom capability? Did you find yourself sticking to one area of FL whenever you went out shooting? Or did you like the versatility?

This is the major drawback of moving to FF: affordable zoom lenses don't really exist. The 17-40L, which is f/4, is one of the cheapest, and is still around $800. You get constant aperture f/4, but ya gotta pay for the additional glass to cover the bigger sensor.

And the 16-35 is equivalent focal lengths for AOV on a FF as the 10-22 EF-S on a crop. You get a nice constant aperture of 2.8 instead of variable 3.5-4.5, but have to pay 2x the price. Ya gotta pay to play in the FF arena.

I'd suggest you borrow or rent a 16-35 or 17-40 to see what you prefer.

IMHO,

shinksma

If it is doing what you need at the wide end keep it. If you think that you would use the zoom more, and get more out out of the zoom, then sell it to help fund one of the zooms.

Cesium wrote in post #14725148
I'd say costing at least less than half of what the comparable zoom lenses cost is a BIG advantage.

Depends on what you consider "comparable", most landscape shooters don't care about it being f/2.8 since they shoot at f/8 or above anyway. So a 17-40L is around $200 more especially if you look on the used or refurb market. Not half the cost. Not a big deal considering you get much more flexibility(say you want to zoom in a bit to get power lines out of the frame). It also doesn't have any sharpness advantages to the zoom like a Zeiss prime would.

I see why some people have it, save a few bucks and get a prime that's f/2.8 and wide angle. But I also see why landscape photographers would much rather have the flexibility of a zoom(and 3mm wider) for not that much more money.

Why does UWA automatically mean "landscape" to some people? f/4 can never replace f/2.8