nickmeertens Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Hi all, On my 20d i really mis a fast moderate wide angle lens. A lens like the 35mm f/2 is for full frame camera's. 35/1.6 is about 22, so i'm looking to buy a fast 20 or 24mm lens (and no, i don't have enough money for L glass :-(). I was thinking of trying the Sigma 24mm f1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro. Does anyone have experiences with this lens and how are they? How is the macro function? Does anyone have other suggestions? (or a canon 24mm 1.4L for $300?) Thanks, Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I have the Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX DG etc, etc... and it's a quite useful 32mm on a 20D. Obviously it's a very fast lens at f/1.8 and one can focus quite close with it - although I'd hesitate to call it a macro lens. I don't have very many shots taken with it here on Photonet. I do have one that I shot a few years ago while in Yosemite that was shot with a 10D - and it's certainly not a macro: http://www.photo.net/photo/3613266 Of course the lens is pretty soft wide open but when stopped down sharpens up nicely. I'm not a big fan of how Sigma implements the autofocus/manual focus switch - it's a push-pull design and can get a bit confusing - but other than that it's a very good lens, especially for the price. It comes with a very nice padded case and lens hood. You might want to check one out. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max_robinson Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Maybe the ability to switch ISO's at will may allow you to buy a slower lens than a 1.8 thereby saving you some dough. I have a 24mm 2.8 ef lens which i have just started using on my 350 xt as my new 'normal lens' , around 38mm equivalent. It was a tad soft at the edges on film but problem solved with the digicrop. Also, you can leave it on hyperfocal most of the time if outdoors . It focusses real fast (not far to move) but is not usm or full time MF(but who cares with such a lens . Its also pretty light but reasonably solidly built for the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBoehm Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 How about the Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM? I've been using one on my 20d and so far I'm very happy with the results. And of course, you get the USM focusing with full-time manual. I find it to be sharp and contrasty. The results are comparable to the 35mm f/2.0 on my film bodies. If I had any complaint at all about the lens, it's that it is heavy. Especially compared to the 35/2 which is a featherweight. That, and I'd love it to be another stop or so faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 A previous reply from me, and I posted some shots in that post: (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D3nz) How about the 20mm/2.8? During my recent longish travel, I took about 80 percent of all my shots with this lens - this lens has become my street photography/landscapes/indoors lens... Of course on my XT/350D it is a 32mm/2.8 lens... Now, I am on record here for saying the following about this lens on a x1.6 crop body: "...And, one day, I woke up and found a lousy 32mm/2.8 in its place (I went digital with the 350D/XT)... What is an ultra-wide lover supposed to do?" So what led me to change my mind? Well, a number of things: - this lens is a REAL USM lens, and the focus is dead on. No back/front focus issues. Plus, the fact that it communicates to the body the subject/focus distance makes a big difference in getting fill-in flash right. With my 28/2.8 and 50/1.8, I have to focus manually, or they will front focus most of the time. I would not buy a non-USM lens (the real deal - not the one in 50mm/1.4) even if someone gave it to me at 1/3 the price). And I find that I have to dial in a negative 2/3 to 1.1/3 stop FEC with the 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 at short distances to get fill-in flash right since they cannot do E-TTL II... - f/2.8 is not exactly a low light lense (I have been spoiled by a fantastic 35mm/1.8 manual focus Minolta lens), but with ISO 800 being highly usable with the XT/350D (especially after some moderate noise reduction with NeatImage), and with the luxury of deleting non-keepers, this lens becomes usable in low light: f/2.8 - 1/30sec. It is not at its best at f/2.8, but almost no wide lens performs its best wide open. I have noticed that the price for the 20mm/2.8 has gone down recently, at least here in Toronto, and there are quite a few available on the auction site. The dedicated lens hood for this lens is so expensive, it might be a deal breaker for some... Smth to consider if you can find used copies. Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 That link again: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D3nz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 here is a shot with the 20mm/2.8 - the 32mm (35mm would of course be even better) perspective is useful when you do not have a foreground interest, smth. that is usually essential with a near-far set-up with wider lenses. <p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/taner-ege-215-large.jpg"></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 That image is 1000 px wide and blows the formating for all posts above/below it. Why aren't the posting guidelines read more often? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickmeertens Posted August 8, 2005 Author Share Posted August 8, 2005 Thanks for your suggestions! I'm afraid 2.8 just isn't fast enough, i shoot a lot available light after dark and indoors. 2.8 lenses often don't get real sharp until at 4.0 (i know, the 1.8 probably wont be very sharp at 1.8 but i will get something and at 2.8 it will have improved (I hope). At 2.8 the Canon 24mm does get better reviews than the 20mm... 4 more mm might be nice though... choises choises... Hope to here from someone with hands-on experience with the Sigma lens. Nice photo's A. Taner! Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 That should have been blocked by the system software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Peter, It is hot linked, so the photo.net servers have no idea what the image dimmensions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I would like to thank those who indicated their sincere concerns for their vigilance.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I had the 24/2.8 for about two years. Small, light, fast, fast AF (no USM but it does have RF) and amazing optical quality. Sharp wide open and tack sharp at f/4 and onwards. No distortion. Excellent flare protection. I once put the sun deliberately inside the frame to test it. As expected, there is a slight resolution decrease but it is really slight. Also, there are none of those ugly color spots. And all this for 280$. I'd certainly buy it again (I sold it to save for a DSLR). Happy shooting,Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now