any thoughts on the canon EF 20mm

[shane_o]

I know someone selling this lens for 650 Canadian. It retails here for

about 849. Wondering what people think of this lens?

Thanks

[Nicholas Barry]

I wrote a review of it on my web site but now feel that it's a bit outdated (the review, that is). It's a decent lens, as long as you don't look too hard in the corners which tend to be rather out of focus. 20mm is a huge angle of view so be sure you're going to be able to use it all.

 

I'm sure that with dSLRs the chromatic aberration, especially in the corners, is going to be very digicam-like. It's not a bad lens and I rather like mine but I don't often have cause to use it. And I shoot with film. With 1.6x crop factor bodies the corner blurriness might be completely taken out of play. But I think the chromatic aberration might still be a problem.

[catchlight]

Shane, I replaced my 20mm f2.8 with the 17-40mm f4L, and find it to be sharper at 20mm, and much more versatile.

 

The zoom stays on my 10D most of the time now, something the 20mm wasn't suited to do.

 

They are going for under US$600 now, mint/used, which is a good value, IMO.

[jordan_prussky]

great lens. I shoot film and have never had any problems with it. Sharp as a tack. I had the 17-40 and got rid of it....not as sharp IMHO.

[lotsawa]

I use the 20/2.8 on my 300D. Fast USM lens, but with open aperture it seems to be quite soft and have a lot of CA. My kit lens 18-55 give very good image quality in comparison to it, but of course it lacks the fast apertures and the fast USM. Better to have a fast lens that it a bit soft than not getting the picture at all. So I use it a lot as a kind of standard lens for shooting events and stuff with and without flash. Plus, on a SLR you have a really wide lens, but I find a 20mm lens difficult to use. I find the price quite high and I think the 17-40/4L might be a better value for the money. Never used it though.

[andreas_thaler]

Take a look at the Tokina ATX Pro 17/3.5.

 

It's a very good lens that will most likely give better image quality than the 2.8/20 ... and it is quite a bit wider than the 20 mm on a 1.6 DSLR. Also, it is built like a tank.

 

Best regards,

Andy

[www.philwinterphotography.]

I recently bought this lens for my 10D but had to return the first copy because it was not nearly as sharp as my 28-135. The second copy was much better. The lens is soft wide open, but is ok from f4.0 on. I haven't noticed any vignetting or CA, but I haven't looked for CA, either. I like the contrast of the lens, and it is small and light. Sure, had I been able to spring for the 17-40L I would have done that. But the EF20 makes a good wide-end addition to the 28-135. If you decide on this lens, you should be able to find it for around $420 US from the "big" outlets.

 

Phil

[tom_bissett1]

I struggled with either buying the 20/2.8 or the 17-40/4 for my 10D. I hate zooms, but I bought the 17-40. I have to say the 17-40 is definitely worth every bit I spent on it. Even people who don't know the difference in camera gear comment that they see as an almost 3D quality of photos taken with that lens. As a zoom-hater, I would say take a look at the 17-40 in addition to the 20 (assuming it's within your price range of course).

[joe_r1]

The Sigma 20mm f/1.8 is faster, sharper, and cheaper than the Canon 20mm f/2.8. It's also faster, sharper, and cheaper than the Canon 17-40mm f4.

[witolda_maruszewska]

I have the Canon 20mm 2.8 and have used it on both a D60 and 10D and actually picked it over the 16-35 2.8 that I had on loan with an option to buy, which is saying quite a bit.

 

Mine performs really well on both the camera bodies I have used it on; it is more than useable at f2.8 (though a little soft) and hits the sweet spot at f5.6 through to f8. Wide angle lenses are hard to use well and I have found that improper technique i.e. photographer error accounted for the problems I encountered with the lens.

 

The 20mm is my walkaround lens on my 10D and I am very pleased with the results I have achieved with it. My view is that it is an underrated lens and somewhat maligned - used properly it is a real little gem and a definite keeper.<div></div>

[taner]

Here are a few previous discussions on the EF 20mm/2.8:

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007SXB">20mm focal length: opinions and recommendations</a></p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007IzW">20mm that bad?</a></p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007ajf">Canon EF 20mm f/2,8 or EF 20-35mm f/3,5-4,5 witch one?</a></p>

 

I believe, based on my own results with the lens, that it is superior to most of the alternatives out there in terms of distortion. What about sharpness? At f/4 and smaller apertures, I doubt that it is significantly worse than the two wide L zooms. I would expect it to be comparable. What we really need to see is a Ds serious shoot out - film/scanner or small sensor comparisons will not do it for me (since I tend to use the EF 20/2.8 mostly with slow speed slide film). Having said that, I myself would go for one of the L zooms if I shot digital - the dust problem would be the decisive factor then.

<p>

For now, with film, I am super happy with my EF 20/2.8 with all kinds of shots (both Sensia 100, handheld):

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2685629-lg.jpg"></p>

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/Untitled-58.jpg"></p>

[lotsawa]

According to my experience the 20/2.8 USM has some flaws when wide open. Here is an example, full frame and 100% crop. It has been shot probably at f2.8 1/30s with my 300D. Those things are gone when you stop down the lens to f4 or better f5.6. Then it is a fairly sharp and contrasty lens. But what is the advantage then over a 18-55 kit lens for < 100$ for example? Faster USM AF, slightly brighter view finder, less image distortion if you shoot architecture. Maybe something more?

 

So if you need fast AF, good image quality and the practical advantages of a zoom, maybe something like the 17-40/4L is a better choice. I also read good comments from owners on Sigma's 18-50/2.8 (but can't be used on a film body).

 

When I got my 300D I had no chance to get it with the kit lens. So I needed some kind of "standard" lens quickly and got a used EF 20/2.8 USM (~32mm on the 300D). Together with a 50/1.4 USM and a 85/1.8 USM I took it on a trip to Sri Lanka and India. I must say this combo served my purposes very well. The 20/2.8 was on the camera most of the time.<div></div>

[lotsawa]

Here is a 100% crop.<div></div>