which wide-angle?

[carl_weller]

hi guys,

 

<p>

 

i'm looking for a wide-angle lense at the moment and have a few questions.

 

<p>

 

the canditates are the 2.8 20mm and the 2.8 24mm.

 

<p>

 

i know that the 20mm is a beast of a lens and is very popular with everyone, but what about the 24mm? it seems to be a bit old in the tooth, but other than that its small, cheap and doesn't weigh much (which is a factor cos i can't be bothered carrying the weight of the world round with me). and it uses a standard 58mm filter.

 

<p>

 

photodo also gives it a much better rating than the 20mm (3.9 vs. 3.4).

 

<p>

 

i've already got the 1.8 85mm and plan to get the 1.4 50mm, so i figure the 3 would make a good, light travelling kit. (also have the 2.8 L 200mm for the long stuff).

 

<p>

 

i also figure that the ultra-wide fashion must surely die sometime and maybe a 24mm (which still gives a pretty good angle of view) is perhaps a "safer" bet.

 

<p>

 

aside from this question i was wondering if anyone out there has any experience with the new crumpler bags - i normally only use lowepro but i can't seem to find that 'ideal' bag in their line-up

 

<p>

 

thanks,

 

<p>

 

carl

[derek_linney]

Carl,

 

<p>

 

I think that with your 50mm and 85mm the gap to 20mm is just too

large. Also, while the 20mm is great it is too extreme a lot of the

time. If you just want one lens then go for the 24mm. Alternatively

if you really want the 20mm then add a 28mm f2.8 (very cheap second

hand) or a 28mm f1.8 to give you 200 / 85 / 50 / 28 / 20 range.

 

<p>

 

Derek

[dfdncithekxlbn8kaglf33]

The 20mm is a wide lens. Very wide. I love mine, but it sees little

use because it takes a certain perspective to get a shot to look good

with it. A 24 length might be a bit better overall.

[Ken Katz]

If I could only have 1 WA lens, it would be a 24mm.

[jimstrutz]

20mm isn't wide enough.

 

<p>

 

I keep saying this but no one seems to care. :-(

 

<p>

 

But if you do get the 20mm, you will definitely want something in

between it an a 50mm.

[yakim_peled1]

Read some : http://www.photographyreview.com/reviewscrx.aspx.

[sarah_needham]

The 24mm is a lovely lens, takes sharp pics but isn't too wide, so as

to add too much distortion.

[mike_dziak1]

I own the 24f2.8, the 28f2.8, and had the FD version of the 20f2.8.

If I could only have I wide angle lens it would be the 24f2.8. I

tell my photography students that the 24mm is the best buy in wide

angles, because it is relatively inexpensive, very sharp, and yet

still gives you that wide angle expanse and great depth of field of

very wide angle lenses in a very compact lens size.

It doesn't have the drawbacks of noticeable distortion, larger, more

expensive filters, nor the problems of filter cut off encounted in

wider lenses.

I would strongly recommend the purchase of the Canon scalloped hood

for maximum shading to retain lens contrast.

As wide angle lens hoods are limited in the amount of shading

possible without image cutoff, the use of only multicoated filters to

prevent flair is very important when using wide angles.

Finally to point out the obivious, the 24mm lens uses a 58mm filter

size, the same as the 85f1.8 and 50f1.4 lenses. A savings in cost

and weight of only having to have filters of one size.

I find my Canon 24f2.8 to be an outstanding, a very sharp and

contrasty lens, just like my Nikon 24f2.8AIS was before I sold my

Nikon system.

[richard_snyder]

I had the Canon 20mm f2.8 and never really liked it. I am not sure

that I can tell you technically why I didn't like it, I just didn't.

I sold it and bought a used 24mm f2.8 and hood for half the cost of

the used 20mm and hood. I absolutely love the 24mm. It is light,

fast and the images that it produces are wonderful with minimal

distortion, excellent contrast and a great look. It is a great and

often overlooked Canon lens.

[jonathan_barber]

Hi Carl,

 

<p>

 

I can confirm that the little 24 is a fine lens optically, and very

light and compact. I have also tried a 24-85 Canon and find the prime

far superior; more contrast and apparent sharpness, esp. at or near

wide open. I'm not against zooms when they're necessary, understand.

 

<p>

 

My experience with 20/21 lenses is that they are great when needed, but

are not often needed. The 24 is just enough less extreme that you can,

if your tastes are like mine, keep it on your camera much of the time.

Good luck.

[carl_weller]

ok,

 

<p>

 

thanks everyone. it's always nice to get a little advice. i was

leaning towards the 24mm - y'all have pushed me over the edge:)

 

<p>

 

carl