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

KenjiS wrote in post #7202184
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...

No, its mostly reviewer variation. I personally never used mine much once the novelty wore off (the clutch and the "hazy 1.8" held me back), so I picked up the 24L - and sold the 20/1.8. Its wider, certainly, but even on FF, caveats kept me from giving it the attention that my L primes (and Sigma 50) get. Other than sharpness in the extreme corners, I get better results from the 35/2 on FF than the 20/1.8 gave me on the crop (with much less mass and fuss), in retrospect it was nothing more than a stopgap.

^ right, but you were using it on a cropper, that's MUCH different than using it on FF considering it's the widest fast prime available.... Everything wider is 2.8 which isn't fast IMHO.

dkspook wrote in post #7207403

^19mm from the Wigma on the 5D for ya

\
Beautiful. How fast is the Wigma?

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...

14 2.8L...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=636683

mastertech01 wrote in post #7219251
Beautiful. How fast is the Wigma?

the wigma is the sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM.

at 19mm, it should be f/5.6 already.

i think its kind of sad and frustrating that below 24mm, there isn't anything else other than the sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX that is faster than f/2.8. and most of them are zooms too!

but if you get a good copy of the 20EX, give it a good shoot out vs the 24L and see if you'd still want both of them after a few weeks/months.

The problem is it's very hard to make fast wide angle and especially ultra-wide angle lenses - that are any good, any way. That's why it's fairly common to see such lenses at f/2.8, even f/4. Problems with vignetting, field curvature, etc. It's easier and cheaper to make really good lenses that are a bit darker than mediocre lenses that are brighter.

The fact that we have 14mm, 15mm and 16mm focal lengths at f/2.8 is pretty normal if not pretty good. The 24mm f/1.4L is a rare bird; Leica just introduced their own 1,4/24 Summilux a month or two ago themselves - and it's $6-7k! Even the famous Zeiss 2,8/21mm Distagon is f/2.8.

Jaetie wrote in post #7219989
i think its kind of sad and frustrating that below 24mm, there isn't anything else other than the sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX that is faster than f/2.8. and most of them are zooms too!

but if you get a good copy of the 20EX, give it a good shoot out vs the 24L and see if you'd still want both of them after a few weeks/months.

20 vs 24L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=480

heres the 20 vs 14L to be fair both at 2.8...both the 24L & the 14L smoke the 20....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=0&API=2

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

I'm not so sure the prices you mention are correct.
Here in holland the price for a 1.4 50 mZE is around 500 euro.
The 1.4 85 mm around 900 euro and the expected price for the 21 mm Distagon around 1400 euro.
Ok still lot of money but a lot lower then you mention.
It would surprise me that there is that big differnce between europe and America in terms of pricing.
Norlammy what we pay in euro is the same price in america in dollars.

hmulders wrote in post #7220929
It would surprise me that there is that big differnce between europe and America in terms of pricing.
Norlammy what we pay in euro is the same price in america in dollars.

Don't you have VAT and other things which bump up prices? Here, from B&H the Zeiss 85mm 1.4 is $1170, what's it cost there?

hmulders wrote in post #7220929
I'm not so sure the prices you mention are correct.
Here in holland the price for a 1.4 50 mZE is around 500 euro.
The 1.4 85 mm around 900 euro and the expected price for the 21 mm Distagon around 1400 euro.
Ok still lot of money but a lot lower then you mention.
It would surprise me that there is that big differnce between europe and America in terms of pricing.
Norlammy what we pay in euro is the same price in america in dollars.

No, you're in the right ballpark. The ZE lenses are "realtively inexpensive." The 50mm is $660 and the 85mm is $1170 here in the states (example from one retailer - popflash).

So we know Netherlands and USA can get the Zeiss 85 1.4 for about the same price...if we could hear from the residents, what about in UK?

don't forget that this lens has a MFD of 7 inches or less. I'm not sure if the 24L or the 14L can do that.

I think the 24Li was around 9-in, an reports are that the 24Lii is the same for mfd.

If you make money with your photos you may want to keep the 24L, but Ive owned the 20mm and it was one of my favorites. I plan to get another for the 5D since I dont like to spend more for lens than the camera each.