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

I have owned the siggy 20mm for a few months now and I really enjoy it. the lens does get quite sharp at 2.8 and above, under 2.8 I would not call it unusable just my opinion. You can get really close to your subject also I think the minimum focusing distance is around 7 or 8 inches.

This was taken at 1.8 with some USM in photoshop

^ yeah, but you're on a crop, so it's a totally different lens for me.

Wilt wrote in post #7205090
Conventional wisdom for prime FL lenses is to choose lenses at least 20% different in FL, or it is 'not worth the bother'.

yeah, but in this case 24mm is EXACTLY 20% more than 20mm....

also, for me it's 2 things. Maybe they're different enough I'll like and keep both. If there not, at least I've tried both, know which I prefer, and I can sell or return the other. But trying it is the only real way to know...

Double Negative wrote in post #7205298
Have you considered the up-and-coming Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon ZE?

see, their 18mm appeals to me because I KNOW 18mm is enough wider that it's different. But 3.5 kills it for me.

but in the end I placed the order this morning. I'll see how it is IRL and make my own decision. Thanks everyone for the input.

Cool, well - good luck Ben and we await your thoughts!

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7205836
^ yeah, but you're on a crop, so it's a totally different lens for me.


yeah, but in this case 24mm is EXACTLY 20% more than 20mm....

also, for me it's 2 things. Maybe they're different enough I'll like and keep both. If there not, at least I've tried both, know which I prefer, and I can sell or return the other. But trying it is the only real way to know...


see, their 18mm appeals to me because I KNOW 18mm is enough wider that it's different. But 3.5 kills it for me.

but in the end I placed the order this morning. I'll see how it is IRL and make my own decision. Thanks everyone for the input.

Yes, so the conventional wisdom was that 20mm vs. 24mm was 'worth it' to own!

technically... your original lens is the 24.

percent is calculated based on difference (24-20) divided by the original (24)

4/24 = 16.67% which is not 20%.



either way, I think you'll like.

Jdumas. Yours looks a bit softer compared to mine wide open on my 5D.

Here's mine at 1.8 on the 5D (it's actually a bit sharper on the 1D with microadjustment):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/shimmishim/3227​681818/

Double Negative wrote in post #7205298
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.

Why would anyone want to autofocus on a wide lens? It's impossible to get it completely accurate with AF.

I took a look at the ZE lenses...not much better than the current Ls, don't be confused by the luxury brand names, it's rare you could tell the difference and even if you could can you really justify the extra thousand ? The 50 mm 1.4 ZE is entering at just under 1000€ I think which is about 2200 $ (Can). I'm pretty sure a 21 2.8 ZE is going to come close to 3 000 + and for what you get you're much better to go with a 24L or 20 1.8 or 11-16 tokina or 10-22, etc

shimmishim wrote in post #7206011
technically... your original lens is the 24.

percent is calculated based on difference (24-20) divided by the original (24)

4/24 = 16.67% which is not 20%.

right, which is exactly why I calculated it as I did....

and yeah, my general prime rule so far has been to keep them at roughly 2x the FL or close to it....

15
24
50
135

135 is a bit longer, but I love it. 24 isn't quite 2x 15, but it's slim pickings at the wide end.... throwing a 20 in there totally throws it off, but whatever, worth a try.

agreed. i think it's worth it. it rarely comes off one of my two bodies now.

go even wider the 16mm

Kajuah wrote in post #7206046
Why would anyone want to autofocus on a wide lens? It's impossible to get it completely accurate with AF.

I took a look at the ZE lenses...not much better than the current Ls, don't be confused by the luxury brand names, it's rare you could tell the difference and even if you could can you really justify the extra thousand ? The 50 mm 1.4 ZE is entering at just under 1000€ I think which is about 2200 $ (Can). I'm pretty sure a 21 2.8 ZE is going to come close to 3 000 + and for what you get you're much better to go with a 24L or 20 1.8 or 11-16 tokina or 10-22, etc

You're preaching to the choir on focus here... I love my MF prime lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Mamiya, etc.)

There are no real reviews on the ZE lenses out yet. In fact, very few ZEs seem to be out and about at all... Granted, just the 50mm and 85mm are available right now - with the 21mm due soon enough. Some reviews do exist of the lenses in other mounts and are less than glowing, and the one that is ZE at the digital picture is subject to error due to the "bug in DPP issue" that tainted the 24L Mark II review. But the 21mm lens is legendary... Which I suspect the ZE version will be as well.

I don't know how the ZE lenses will shape up optically, nor do I know much about the other SLR-mount lenses in general upon which they're based... But their M mount lenses (ZM) are phenomenal in every regard and easily outclass Canon's L lenses. Their medium format lenses such as those used on Hasselblads (for example) are also phenomenal.

So until I see some real reviews on the ZE lenses or try one or two myself... I have no reason to expect them to be anything short of fantastic.

I love my 24L on my 5D as well and I think it is wide enough for me. But just for the hell of it, I tried out the 15mm fish and the 12-24 Wigma over the weekend - got a flickr set of those shots right here:
http://www.flickr.com …k/sets/72157612​926351078/

12mm on FF is just so funny it's freaky

It is INSANELY wide, but I am a fast prime lover myself, so the big slow (aperture wise - the AF is great) Wigma is not on my shopping list. But it sure was fun to try! It's sharp as hell wide open, but I do believe there is some sample variation...

^

I had a 12-24 on my 1Dii when I sold it for the 5D. I found I used it at 12mm waaaaay too much which was honestly hurting my compositions. So I sold it for the 17-40 AND 15mm FE for when I still want wide....

but now I want it back. and honestly, it was between the 20mm and 12-24 for what to buy right now. I went with the 20mm as I've never owned one and it'll be fun to try something new. If I don't like it, it's return will buy another 12-24.

19mm... looks like a telephoto shot compared to a 17mm

I went over to a friends house to play with his 16-35 mk1 and was surprised how much more of a room you could get in with just that extra 1mm compared to my 17-40. But in the end I liked my 17-40 more as it could also (nearly) double as a "standard" lens. There was quite a difference between 35 and 40mm. The 24-105L is my favourite walkabout lens and the only lens I took to Japan due to weight restrictions on hand luggage and space. It's not optically my favourite as it vignettes below f/5.6 and has more CA that the 17-40 but for sheer versatility and the 3 stop IS, it's a great general purpose travel lens.

I really miss the 17-40 if I'm shooting ceilings in cathedrals though. 24mm isn't nearly wide enough.

^ yeah, I tried a 16-35mm II on an extended trial (4 months) and ended up selling it to go back to the 17-40... I love the 17-40 for it's size/weight/price and for me the 1mm wasn't worth it nor was the stop.

But I just went through my meta filter in LR tonight and checked some old shots out and now I'm really rethinking the 12-24mm... Obviously I'll see how the 20mm is when it gets here, but yeah, I have a ton of shots I love with the 12-24mm on my old 5D. Part of that though is that I took it on a few trips, and since selling it for the 17-40 and 15mm FE I haven't gone anywhere fun, so how much of that is the location -vs- the wider view.....