Which EF wide angle..

[marios pittas]

Hi there

 

I have been shooting for almost 20 years now, however, I am pretty

new to the EOS system. Until recently, my main 35mm lenses were

Contax Zeiss 18mm f/4 (used extensively), 28mm f/2.8 (almost never

used), 50mm f/1.4 (used frequently), and 100 f/2 (used extensively

for potraits), however for a specific project that I am doing, I

need to use Canon EOS EF camera & lenses..

 

So I bought a EOS-1N and a 100mm f/2 USM (decent optical performance

I thought so far). For wide angles I am lost though as there are so

many and they come with so many flavours).. I prefer primes, but

have heard bad comments about the 20mm, sometimes about the 24mm..

 

I would prefer USM lenses as often I do my own focusing

adjustments.. so which one for a good sharp, contrasty lens (most of

the time I would not enlarge beyond 12"x16")?

 

- 20mm (least prefered as no USM)

- 24mm (least prefered as no USM)

- 17~40mm USM

- 20~35mm USM

 

If my list is missing important lenses pls add them in your

recomendation.

 

Your thoughts are much appreciated

 

-- Marios (marios_pittas@yahoo.com)

[tommyinca]

Have you consider an Zeiss to EOS adapter instead?

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>I am pretty new to the EOS system. </i> </p>

<p> Then it is a good idea to look at the <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/">Canon EOS Beginners? FAQ</a>. </p>

<p> <i>I would prefer USM lenses as often I do my own focusing adjustments.. </i> </p>

<p> Please note that there are <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#lensmotor">2 types of USM motors</a>. <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#ftm">FTM</a> is always found in the ring type but seldom in the MM type. </p>

<p> <i>- 20mm (least prefered as no USM) - 24mm (least prefered as no USM) </i> </p>

<p>Canon has only one 20mm prime: 20/2.8 USM. It has two 24mm primes: 24/2.8 and 24/1.4 USM L. </p>

<p> <i>Contax Zeiss 18mm f/4 (used extensively), </i> </p>

<p> Then you should look at the <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef17-40usm.htm">17-40/4</a> or <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml">16-35/2.8</a>. Also look at reviews <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/">here</a>.

</p>

 

<p>One word of advice: Search.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[chiswick_john]

Opticaly your Zeiss lenses will walk all over Canon wides - you should concider using them with an adaptor if this is a priority. Lack of USM is not a great concern for wides as the focus throw is so small.

[digitmstr]

I see no reason to spend extra cash either; since you already have the Contax lenses get an adapter and use them in Av or M mode with your EOS camera.

[marios pittas]

I understand the suggestion to use the Y/C -> EOS adaptor. I do not plan to sell my Zeiss lenses :) However, "for a specific project that I am doing, I need to use Canon EOS EF camera & lenses..", thus the issue..

 

Many thanks for the links (they are being read) and the correction with regards to the 20mm. The need to use manual focusing is because most of the time the main subject is not in the center of the photo thus until I get use to changing the AF point I find it easier to manualy re-focus the lens. I guess I am probably emulating using my Contax AX.

 

If one was to constrain the question:

 

1. 20mm vs 17-40mm vs 20-35mm: Now that I know that they are all 3 USM, I don't mind forgoing the extra 3mm, but how do they fare in terms of contrast and sharpness wide open?

 

2. Are there any other (including older) Canon lenses that I should consider?

 

Many thanks

 

-- Marios

[mike_fabricius]

I was in the market for a wide angle lens for my 10d about a year ago. I went to the local camera shop and fired off a few frames with both lenses at various apertures. I didn't use a tripod. To my eye, the 17-40 was consistently sharper and had more contrast than the 20mm. This certainly wasn't scientific testing but I have never regretted buying the 17-40.

 

Mike<div></div>

[mike_fabricius]

And here is the image from the 20mm...<div></div>

[mike_fabricius]

A bit more about my cursory tests:

 

The crop is from just right of the centre. The 17-40 consistently outperformed the 20mm at all apertures. All shots were auto-focused on the same point which was some distance away; i'd have to go back there to see how far away it was - I can't remember.

 

I reckon that at 1/180s with a 20mm (effective 32mm) lens, camera shake is unlikely, especially to shake consistently with 20mm and not with the larger 17-40. The only other explanation I can think of is some focus calibration issue between 20mm lens and the body.

 

So this certainly wasn't scientific, (please don't jump down my throat half of photo.net...) but I've never regretted my decision.

 

Mike

[splat]

"for a specific project that I am doing, I need to use Canon EOS EF camera & lenses.."

 

What kind of a job requirement is that? Why not ask whoever invented this requirement which lens should be used. Te requirement that EF lenses be used just doens't make sense for any job other then a review of EF lenses.

[chiswick_john]

"The need to use manual focusing is because most of the time the main subject is not in the center of the photo thus until I get use to changing the AF point I find it easier to manualy re-focus the lens." - then please tell us why you need EF/USM Canon lenses when your existing Contax lenses with an adaptor will do the job perfectly.

[digitmstr]

buy a 16-35 f/2.8

[marios pittas]

Steven and John: The constraints that I described were set as part of the projects' constraints-parameters. Every project (whether in photography or engineering, or medical, etc etc) has a number of constraints-parameters (e.g. budgetary, time wise, effort wise, quality wise etc etc).. Some constraints you can push to their limits, some you can get away with breaking them, and some others you have to maintain and respect at all costs..

 

Hope that helps.

 

Mike: Was any of the photos in your web site taken with the 20mm?

Yakim: "Search" :) I am doing it.. I am doing it.. its just there is so much :)

 

Yakim and Giampiero: 16-35 vs 17-35: The answer is in the price difference which from what I read so far has not convinced me that it translates to performance -- appart from the extra f-stop (from Luminous Landscape that Yakim referred me to): "The new 17-40mm f/4L is a welcome surprise though. At nearly half the price of the faster and slightly wider 16-35mm f/2.8L it provides excellent image quality, surpassing that of the more expensive lens in several areas."

 

-- Marios

[splat]

I understand that your client may have dictated that you use EF lenses. I'm just curious why? It doesn't make sense to me. Nobody would contract a doctor and then dictate that they must use a fisher price medical kit. Usually it is the photographer that decided what the best tool is and uses that. Clients reasonably dictate their requirements as to the finished product. It is the dictation to use a specific brand of lens that seems really strange to me. I guess if they are paying you well enough for it then who cares but it just strikes me as strange that's all.

[chiswick_john]

No cleint of mine has ever stipulated what brand of camera I should use - your reasons for needing EF/USM just don't add up from the information you are giving us.

[marios pittas]

Many thanks to those who have provided me with information. I bought the 17~40mm f/4 L locally for S$930 = USD$570. I did realise that I had to explain why I need to buy an EF lens rather than some other brand before I can ask for comperative opinions on EF lenses.

 

Happy shooting

 

-- Marios

[mike_fabricius]

Marios: Enjoy your 17-40.

 

Recent photos on my site were taken with the 17-40, older ones with the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. None with the 20mm which I did not buy.

 

Mike

[splat]

You don't have to explain why you are using an EF lens before asking a question. I was just curious. I don't actually have a wide angle so I couldn't answer you question anyway.