Wide Angle Lens for Landscapes

[douglas_j._moo]

I own the Canon 28-105 and 100-300 and want to add a "wider" lens. Atkins recommends a 20 or 20-35; yet other pros I have read are high on the 24. So a two part question. 1) Considering I have a 28 already, which is better: 24 or 20? And 2) if 20, is it worth potential flare problems to get the flexibility of the zoom? Anyone used the Canon USM 20-35 who could give advice?

[bob_atkins]

Since you already have a 28mm lens, the jump to a 24 just isn't

that big, hence a 20mm might make more sense. The advantages of

the 24 are that it takes the same 58mm filters as your 28-105 and

it's cheaper than the 20. If you had a 35-whatever zoom, the

24mm would probably be the more useful lens.

 

<p>

 

The 20-35 (non-L) zoom is pretty good. It shows more flare than

the 24, but is comparable in sharpness stopped down. Shooting

directly into the sun you can see the difference in flare, but

on "normal" shots you don't see it. The disadvantage of the zoom

is it takes 77mm filters and is larger and heavier than 24mm (but

it's actually lighter than the 20mm) - and of course it duplicates part of the range of your 28-105.

 

<p>

 

I've owned and shot all three lenses. There really isn't anything

wrong with the 20-35USM. The 24/2.8 is better if you intend to

shoot at large apertures, but for landscape work that's just not

an issue. It's only real advantage is somewhat less flare (and

better "sun stars") when shot into the sun, stopped down, and the

fact that it takes 58mm filters.

[sanjoy___]

I would tend to agree with Bob Atkins; the 20 would make more sense if you have a 28 already. I own the 20/2.8usm and this is a superb lens; very sharp and contrasty and not prone to flare. I have also used the 20-35/3.5-4.5usm and was not impressed even with the lens stopped down (maybe I had a defective sample).

[nes_suno]

<P>Take a look the Nikon 20/2.8 AF lens review in the Nikon equipment section on photo.net. I think you can just replace the word Nikon with Canon and you'll probably have a pretty accurate description of the Canon lens (unfortunately, the actual Canon lens has not been reviewed in the Canon equipment section).

 

<P>At least you'll be able to see the approximate field of view of a 20mm lens. The landscape shots look pretty good.

[matt_plunkett]

Douglas,

 

<p>

 

I also own the canon 28-105 lens and recently wanted to add a wider angle perspective. The "L" was outside of my pricerange; when deciding between the 20, the 24, and the 20-35 USM I decided to go for the 20 mm prime lens.

 

<p>

 

I felt (as Bob Atkins said) that the 20 is "more different" than the existing range I had covered. So that left the 20 mm prime and the consumer zoom.

 

<p>

 

The 20-35 lens appears to be as sharp (as the 20 and 24 mm primes) in lens tests (when stopped down, as it would nearly always be used for landscapes). However, I was worried about contrast and other more subjective issues. Because I didn't have any information about this issue, I decided to go with the prime, and I'm very happy with my choice. From what I've read the 20-35 also seems like a very good consumer lens, too.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with your choice,

 

<p>

 

Matt

[paul_wilson2]

If the Canon 20-35 is as good as it's reputed to be, I think you should take a serious look at it.

 

<p>

 

I recently bought the Nikon 20-35 and I'm very happy with it. One of the big problems with wide-angle shots is getting too much in the picture. The zoom helps by letting you crop in the camera and try different compositions. Some people say that they don't like wide-angle zooms because they don't have much range, but 1 mm can make a big difference when you get wide. It can also be handy to have overlapping focal lengths.

 

<p>

 

I also have a Nikon 24/2 which I haven't touched since getting the zoom. I'm not going to sell it though because it's small and the extra stop is nice. If I could only have one I'd take the zoom.

 

<p>

 

If you do go for the zoom, make sure to get the hood for it.

[michael_k._gardner]

I own both the 24 f/2.8 and the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. I bought the 24 first, and like it, especially for interior shots. There's little distortion, and the wide aperture helps. Having said that, there's a lot to recommend the versatility of a zoom. This one performs well, and I tend to use it more for landscapes. I think I'd choose the zoom if forced to choose one of the two.

 

<p>

 

I've not used the 20, so I can't comment on that particular lens.

[martin_davidson]

My two favourite lenses are 28 (Leica) and 21 (Konica). The difference that only 7mm offers is enormous! The 21 is more fun, I have to say, although maybe this is just the novelty. Going wide just makes striking composition easier, it seems to me, (although gives slightly more uniform results).

 

<p>

 

It really comes into its own in city-scapes, where all those converging verticals/horizontals, and the chance for surprising juxtapositions, are very striking. Mine are primes, and therfore lack the versatility of a zoom, but you will never regreat going way out as wide as you can, (short of fish-eye, the one photographic piece of gear I just loathe.)

[bill_meyer]

Douglas, It sounds like you've gotten some pretty good advice from the people here. One thing I would add is that I have a Tamron 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5. I found the glass used in this lens to be extremely accurate. I use the 20mm for landscapes much more than the 24mm setting. I'd suggest this lens any day.

[william_steinhurst]

I've had a lot of fun with my 20 mm and tried a 24. The wide angle possibilities are more exciting with the 20 in landscapes. flower closeups, and may other subjects. However, the 20 requires more thought and care in use because (1) objects intrude more easily (like your own shadow or feet), and (2) it's easy to loose the subject in the bigger image space. You need to pay more attention to working with your foreground. For working reportage situations with people (not nature photography here anymore) the 24 is easier to manage, so if scenery (natural and manmade) is not your be all and end all, you might have to make a tough choice.

[sungkuk_hwang]

I have had both EF 24mm and EF 20-35mm/3.5-4.5 as well as 28-105mm.

EF 20-35mm is a fine lens. It is pretty sharp and it also gives you a lot of flexibility much like 28-105mm. But, it doesn't quite have the sharpness nor the contrast of EOS prime wide-angle lenses. It has significant distortion close to 20mm. It also requires 77mm filters and, as you know, 77mm Cir. pol. filters are pretty expensive as well, and you will have to lug around a whole set of really big and expensive filters. In contrast, personally, I really like EF 24mm lens. I think it is wide enough but not too wide. 20mm lens gives you a dramatic wide perspective, which make your pictures look quite unusual and different. But, I feel that there will be a too big of gap between 20mm and 28-105mm, especially because 28-105mm zoom lens is probably more like 30mm or so on the wide-angle side. I also have a EF 28mm and when I compare it with 28mm-something zoom lens, it is always noticeably wider. Even 28-70mm/2.8 L is not as wide as 28mm on the wide angle side.

Anyway, it all comes down to what you want and the way you like taking pictures. If you will be mainly using the lens for landscape pictures on tripod, you should get either 24mm or 20mm. Otherwise, you will probably be happier with 20-35mm.

I would strongly recommend that you go to a camera shop and try those lenses and see which one you like better.

[j_viray]

Get the 20. I have the 20-35L and am always shooting at 20 or 35. Since you have a 28-xxx already, regular wideangle is covered abd I only really use my 20-35 when I need that distorted look that's all the raze now.

[dan_smith]

If you will be shooting where sunlight may be hitting the front lens elements you will usually find less flare in the high quality fixed focal length lenses compared to even the finest zooms. This is a factor to consider when making your decision.

[art_sarles]

I just found this webb sight in time because I was debating whether or not to buy the 20 or 24 mm nikon lens.I have a nikon 28-85 and think that Bob Artkins has convinced me to go with the 20mm for my landscapes.I'll just have to watch the flare.Thank you all and hope to be back again soon.

[ShunCheung]

If you already have 28mm in a zoom, a 20mm will indeed give you a bigger jump since the difference between a 28 and 24 is small. I have a 20mm, a 24mm, a 35mm and a zoom that covers 24-50. For landscape work, I like the 24mm best. The 20mm is frequently too wide for my taste so that I don't use it very often. Therefore, I recommend checking the 20mm out to make sure that you are happy with the view before buying one.

[leslie_yew]

I used to own both the canon 20-35 and the canon 17-35L. I now own the canon 24mm. The 20-35 lens is very prone to flare and if you're going to shot into the sun its going to give you lots of problems. Another disadvantage of using the 20-35 is that it uses 77mm filters and when using it at <24mm you will find that even the cokin P series filter holder isn't big enough. I have tried to get around this problem by trying to saw off some of the outer slots but even then it is not possible to use the lens at 20 mm. I ended up using the lens at 24mm most of the time when I'm using a filter (ND grad). The 17-35 lens on the other hand is wonderful at combating flare and its performance is quite amazing considering that its a zoom. It is sharper and more contrasty as well but the price is about 3 times that of the 20-35. The 24mm lens is very sharp compared to the other two zooms and I love it. Its very affordable and gives you good value for money. In fact I think its the cheapest of the four lenes. So if you're on a budget you can't really go wrong with the 24mm. Flare and distortion is much improved over the zooms and I think you will be very satisfied with this lens. I have no experience with the 20mm so I can't really comment on that. Therefore if you want a lens just for landscapes I would recommend the 24 prime over the 20-35. I regularly shot landscapes with a ND grad so I ended up using both zooms at 24mm most of the time. Thats why I choosed the 24 over the 20 because now I'm more used to the 24mm perspective. IMHO using the 20 for landscapes usually requires that the scene has a very prominant foreground subject for the shot to work. The 24 mm is more forgiving in this respect. I guess its a matter of preference. If you already have a 28-xx zoom then I would suggest getting a prime over a zoom. Thats the path I would choose.