am I crazy? considering a 20mm when I have a 24L?

OK, I LOOOOOOOOOOVE my 24L. It's practically welded to my 5D around the house. I love wide angle lenses and fast primes. So is 20mm enough wider that I could use both? Is a good copy of the siggy good enough it could replace my 24L? I know about their QC issues (I've owned 4 other EX DG siggies) and I know about the clutch (the 24-70 EX DG I had was the same setup). I can deal with those, but is 20mm enough different from 24mm to even bother?

Would you try it? Basically, it's a lens I've always wondered about, but now looking at getting one I'm just rethinking it considering how close it is to the 24L, but I also know how different each MM is on the wide end like this.....

if it was a 18 or wider I know I'd LOVE it, but 20mm is basically as wide as it gets in terms of fast primes...

Well 20 is a whole lot wider than 24. Not sure about the sigma from personal experience but by reputation it seems that the wide canon zooms beat it except for price and size, which are not things to be taken lightly. If you like wide (and I do like wide) then a 20 can be a great thing, even a fun thing.

I have the 24-105 f/4 L and I'm considering it as well.

I hear it doesn't sharpen up until 2.8 or higher but if you don't mind that (or mind it soft wide open), then go for it!

I heard the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 referred to as being either excellent or crap, id imagine theres a good deal of quality variation there...I did hear fairly consistently that it beats the Canon 20mm f/2.8 however..

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/122420

Theres a good comparison, the 20mm f/1.8 vs the 12-24 Sigma

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/3z1p

And another versus a bunch of other lenses

You should try my 15mm fish

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7201932
OK, I LOOOOOOOOOOVE my 24L. It's practically welded to my 5D around the house. I love wide angle lenses and fast primes. So is 20mm enough wider that I could use both? Is a good copy of the siggy good enough it could replace my 24L? I know about their QC issues (I've owned 4 other EX DG siggies) and I know about the clutch (the 24-70 EX DG I had was the same setup). I can deal with those, but is 20mm enough different from 24mm to even bother?

Would you try it? Basically, it's a lens I've always wondered about, but now looking at getting one I'm just rethinking it considering how close it is to the 24L, but I also know how different each MM is on the wide end like this.....

if it was a 18 or wider I know I'd LOVE it, but 20mm is basically as wide as it gets in terms of fast primes...

Give 'er a try on your 17-40 and see what you think. If 2.8 is fast enough for your purposes, why not go for the 16-35?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7201932
OK, I LOOOOOOOOOOVE my 24L. It's practically welded to my 5D around the house. I love wide angle lenses and fast primes. So is 20mm enough wider that I could use both? Is a good copy of the siggy good enough it could replace my 24L? I know about their QC issues (I've owned 4 other EX DG siggies) and I know about the clutch (the 24-70 EX DG I had was the same setup). I can deal with those, but is 20mm enough different from 24mm to even bother?

Would you try it? Basically, it's a lens I've always wondered about, but now looking at getting one I'm just rethinking it considering how close it is to the 24L, but I also know how different each MM is on the wide end like this.....

if it was a 18 or wider I know I'd LOVE it, but 20mm is basically as wide as it gets in terms of fast primes...

I played with it for about a week and exchanged for the sigma 10-24. I needed something more wider for my Vegas trip. At F1.8, I don't think it is really usable at all:
See here. I focused on the band but the shot overall looks soft, really soft.
http://farm4.static.fl​ickr.com …59175147_df482e​09e0_o.jpg

This is with F5 with the woman the focus.
http://farm4.static.fl​ickr.com …60004286_baa95b​6a69_o.jpg

Here is the shot at F8
http://farm4.static.fl​ickr.com …59176139_910f78​5858_o.jpg

jbergdoll wrote in post #7202206
You should try my 15mm fish

why try yours when I have my own?

MichSt wrote in post #7202237
Give 'er a try on your 17-40 and see what you think. If 2.8 is fast enough for your purposes, why not go for the 16-35?

had it, didn't like it -vs- the 17-40 for the money. For travel/landscapes I love f4 zooms for their size/weight and price. But when I need speed, 2.8 typically isn't enough anyway so I'd rather go with fast primes (plus fast primes make more sense to me when paired with f4 zooms -vs- 2.8 zooms)...

but yeah, I've been playing with the 17-40 at 20 and 24mm, but it's not the same if you know what I mean.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7202472
why try yours when I have my own?

Haha, touche!

i have the 20mm.

currently, the 20mm and the 50mm sigma's are hands down my favorite lenses.

i like the 50 so much that i don't want to send it off for its front focusing issue!!!

well after this weekend, I am sending it in to have it fixed.

the sigma 20... this is my second copy and it still front focuses slightly but the microadjustment on the 1D makes it tack sharp.

Another well known aurora photographer told me that the 20 1.8 is his better choice of the question between that and the 24L.
He reiterated the same about the 24L taking till 2.8 to sharpen up, but the 20 1.8 is sharper still than the 24L at 2.8
I'm happy with my tokina 11-16, but 20 1.8 is supposedly the better choice as for sharpness, clarity and range..especially for the price.

It's on my wishlist, anyway

ps: don't try the fisheye, its junk

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7202472
had it, didn't like it -vs- the 17-40 for the money. For travel/landscapes I love f4 zooms for their size/weight and price. But when I need speed, 2.8 typically isn't enough anyway so I'd rather go with fast primes (plus fast primes make more sense to me when paired with f4 zooms -vs- 2.8 zooms)...

but yeah, I've been playing with the 17-40 at 20 and 24mm, but it's not the same if you know what I mean.

I hear you...trying the FL’s on a zoom gives you a flavor, but that’s about it. I have never used the sig 20, but surprisingly it has some pretty good reviews over at FM. Price isn’t too bad either. If I were in your shoes, I’d give it a try.

On an unrelated note...I had a 24L for a while and ended up selling it and adding a 35L to my bag. Now, I love the 35L for indoor shots, events and such. It’s a killer lens. But, the 24L has been calling me lately. There’s something special about a view that wide with a shallow dof. I’m thinking about adding a 24 again if/when the prices on the mkI start to fall a bit.

Conventional wisdom for prime FL lenses is to choose lenses at least 20% different in FL, or it is 'not worth the bother'.

On the wide end, every millimeter makes a huge difference as compared to the long end. So that 20mm will definitely be wider than the 24mm. The aperture of f/2.8 isn't too bad either, especially for a wide angle.

Have you considered the up-and-coming Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon ZE? Now THAT should be one helluva lens, on par - if not way beyond - the 24L. Sorry, MF only.