20mm or 24mm prime?

[randall_pukalo]

I would like to buy a prime lens for scenic landscape shots, and was

wondering whether 20mm or 24mm would be better. Which is better, 20 or

24mm? Is 20mm too wide? I dont want a fish eye type effect.

Also, any recommendations? I am looking at either the Canon f2.8's or

the Sigma f1.8's. Which is sharper?

I am still shooting film, so I dont have to apply a 1.6 factor.

Any inputs is greatly appreciated.

[John Crowe]

It would be good to know what other lenses you have, that this will have to fit with, and what wideangle lenses that you have used in the past.

 

 

Neither of these lenses gives the fisheye effect that you want to avoid. As you go to wider focal length lenses the lens is able to be focussed on closer objects while maintaining infinity focus to far objects, using approriate apertures, which allows you to exagerate the size of the foreground with repect to the background. Also as you go wider it becomes more difficult to compose effective images but when you do they are very satisfying! Some even say addictive, and I must say I love the challenge of creating effective images with my 17mm.

 

 

I would stick with Canon when you can and actually for most photography, especially landscapes, you will find you are always stopping down the aperture as much as possible as often as possible, usually f11 to f22 or even lower, so the importance of f1.8 is minimal. Good luck!

[shambrick007]

24

[WM]

Randall,

 

It all depends on how exagerrated the effect you want, but I love both the Sigma 20/1.8 EX and the 24/1.8 EX. They are both tack sharp, fast, build is good, AF noisy but fast, and CHEAP. Both superb lenses. Here's the perspective of the 20/1.8 on an EOS3.

 

All the best...........!<div></div>

[WM]

And another at 20mm<div></div>

[WM]

And another at 20mm. The perspective is astounding !<div></div>

[John Crowe]

Actually I think you will find that each of the Sigma's are the same price as the Canon's. The Sigma's may be f1.8 but you run the risk of compatibility issues down the road and I doubt the Sigma's will perform as well as the Canon's with respect to colour rendition, flare resistance and even sharpness. As I mentioned most landscape work is done at very small apertures. f1.8 lenses are used for interior scenes which prohibit the use of flash, for street photography in dim light when you may not want to be detected, or for very particular portrait requirements. Good luck!

[rokkor fan]

The perspective may be astounding, but the bokeh in that third shot is terrible! Looks almost like it must be a mirror 20mm! I know that's not possible, but seriously, that bokeh is about the worst I have seen from a prime lens in a long time. Based upon that, I am not sure I would ever want to use this lens at close range and wide apertures - is that common for the Sigma?

[WM]

Good point Rokkor fan !

 

Forgot about the bokeh issue. You are right, the 20mm prime bokeh is ugly, so for fairly even plane shooting it is great, but for foreground-background shots, the Sigma primes lose out on the Canon.

My previous 17-40 and the current 16-35 I have is much, much smoother for bokeh, even for a zoom lens.

 

Thanks for pointing it out !

[josh1]

<i>Here's the perspective of the 20/1.8 on an EOS3. </i>

 

 

<p>I think you mean <i>apparent</i> perspective. We all know that pespective has nothing to do with focal length. It is based soley on the position of the camera relative to the subject and other objects.

[taner]

There is, in fact, no such thing as a scenic landscape lens; if the scene calls for it, a 35mm, a 50mm, or a 85mm lens will be fully functional for landscapes (without a doubt, you will get the sharpest landscapes with a fifty, other things being equal). What you are really saying is that you want a wide angle lens that you want to use in your landscape photography, and you are trying to find out how wide you should go.

 

If you already have a 28-smth zoom lens, or a 28mm prime, the answer is easy: go with the 20mm. The perspective will be sufficiently different that the 28mm to justify the purchase, and it will open up opportunities for quite different styles of photography for you. If you do not yet have the 28mm perspective, the answer is easy again: before you go ultra wide with 24mm or 20mm lenses, buy a 28mm lens. I would strongly recommend the EF 28mm f/2.8 - dirt cheap, and great performer with regard to sharpness, color and contrast, and distortion. Although not the sharpest Canon wide exactly, the EF 20mm f/2.8 is a great lens with regard to all other aspects; I would recommend that as well.

 

Especially for landscapes, it is highly likely that a 28mm lens would see more use than either a 24mm or a 20mm lens. Using the ultra wide perspectives (24mm and wider) for landscapes you will need to address an important challenge: the foreground... The wider you go, the more difficult the challenge. Leave the foreground "empty", without a center of interest, and your shot is almost guaranteed to be problematic (everything will be too distant and small, and the scene will have no overall impact). With a 35mm or a 28mm lens (28mm perspective being the foreground challenge threshold in my opinion), you can mostly get away with not paying attention to your foreground.

 

Cheers.<div></div>

[taner]

<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

<p> My vote goes to the 24mm. I feel that 28mm is a bit "dull" and 20mm is often too wide. To me, the 24mm is the "perfect" wide angle. When I had the 17-35/2.8 I used it almost exclusively in either 24mm or 35mm settings. Thus, I sold it and bought the 35/2 and 24/2.8 primes. </p>

<p> Nevertheless, they are so different that I think you really need to try them out yourself.</p>

<p> No experience with any 20mm prime or any Sigma lens but I am <b>very</b> happy with the 24/2.8. Small, light, sharp even wide open, fast AF despite the lack of USM, fast aperture (good for natural light shots), very good flare control (I once deliberately put the sun in the picture and other than a slight loss of contrast, nada), unnoticeable distortion, great bokeh, relatively cheap..... What could anyone ask for more? </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000bPD">Here</a> is a variety of wide angle shots.</p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[isaac sibson]

I agree with yakim...

 

24 and 35 are great lengths for landscape. I personally find 28mm a bit of a nether length, and 20 is too wide for general landscape work, although there are definitely situations for which it is useful.

 

As to canon vs sigma, Canon.

[william_mackenzie]

Sorry, Randall, I dont want to hijack your thread but I was very interested in A Taner's posting regarding the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8. I have long been prevaricating over which of these lenses to get - I go to the Himalaya every year and up to last year always took my trusty (film) Konica FC1 with Hexanon 28mm to take landscapes in the mountains. The FC1 is starting to leak light around the film door so next time I will have to take the EOS33/Elan.

 

I have done a bit of research on the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 - the Photodo MTFs are 3.9 and 3.8 respectively. The photographyreview scores are 4.42 for the 24mm and 4.65 for the 28mm. Key considerations, as far as I am concerned, is sharpness and resistance to flare - on paper the 28mm should perform better as far as flare is concerned having fewer elements/groups.

 

The cost difference in cost between the lenses is impressive so I would be grateful for views on the two lenses - and apologies again to Randall, but this is relevant...sort of.

 

Bill

[lovethismoment]

I love the angle of view of the 24mm. There are a few times I wish I had a wider lens but most of the time I think the 24 is a lot more usable than the 20, but really it comes down to personal preference - if you could at least try them out at a store you might get a better idea. I actually find the 24 to be quite a bit different to the 28 end of my old crap zoom, and as others have said I find the view to be more interesting.

 

I had a friend who was looking at buying an SLR and was asking me recommendations. I went on and on about the 24mm lens and he just smiled and nodded, then I actually got him to look through the viewfinder and he went, "Wow, I want one of those!"

 

Here's a photo with the sun in the frame to show the little flare there is (BTW it's the Canon 24mm f2.8). I find it very flare resistant - I always use the lens hood...excpet for when my last one got loose and I managed to lose it...oops.<div></div>

[taner]

Hi William,

<p>

I am sure Randall would not mind; here are two links to articles I have enjoyed on wide angle landscape/nature photography:

<p>

<a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0403/dw0403-1.html">How to Use Wide Angle Lenses Effectively - the writer's favorite lens is a 20mm...</a>

<p>

and

<p>

<a href="http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Photography_lessons/Composition/Lesson_8/a_Fun_at_28_mm.html">Focal Length Fun: 28 mm - this guy sure likes his 28mm...</a>

<p>

I hope you enjoy the articles as I did

<p>

Cheers.<div></div>

[taner]

William, I forgot to add - I do not have any experience with the Canon 24mm f/2.8, so I can only say this: you will find that the majority absolutely LOVE this lens. A small minority however, quite recently actually, raised concerns regarding its sharpness - Scott Eaton was the photographer who 'led' that group I believe (if you want to do a search, use that name and "EF 24mm")

[william_mackenzie]

Thanks very much for the links A Taner, great stuff. Think your photos are wonderful, particularly the cityscapes.

 

Bill

[mr.wind-upbird]

Why dangle when you can tell a photo? But seriously, my 24/2.8 is coming from B&H this Thursday, and I CAN'T WAIT!