wide angle// prime or zooms?

[liviu_ailincai]

hello everybody// i have another question for all of you//i am looking to upgrade my tokina 20-35 f 2,8 atx pro with something much more better//i considered first (and i like ideea) that the best choice would be the canon 20 mm f 2,8 but...reading some reviews i discovered that canon 16-35 f 2,8 and even 17-40 f 4 are better rated than 20mm prime//is this possible? please give me a little help here if you are using those lenses//thanks a lot again

[liviu_ailincai]

by the way... i am using a film 35 mm body//thank you

[anish]

my 24/2.8 is my favorite lens. at a given aperture, a prime will be as good, if not better, than any zoom at that focal length. i shoot mainly landscapes, and i've found that for wide angle shots, i rarely ever miss the ability to zoom. if you like the perspective of 20mm, buy it and don't look back. i enjoy using my fixed lens, since it forces me to become more involved with what i'm shooting in order to obtain the best composition. when i used to use a zoom, i'd find myself just standing in one spot, turning the zoom ring. not that you can't compose effectively with a zoom, but this has been my experience. of course, you must consider that in terms of size, weight and cost, you come out way ahead with the prime. the two zooms you've mentioned are enormous and quite heavy,

 

-Anish

[benb]

I used to have the 20mm f/2.8 for use on a film body and I replaced it with a 17-40 on my 10D to get that little bit of extra wide angle. The 20mm seemed great on a full frame body but it was nothing special on the digital body. Big and heavy and not very wide.

 

The 17-40 is big and heavy but at least it's a little wider (28mm effective vs. 32mm effective)

 

Otherwise they are both plenty sharp, both have good AF, though the zoom is maybe a little faster, very hard to tell. One thing the 20mm prime still has as an advantage is the extra stop of light, and especially the ability to see through the viewfinder for evaluating focus.

[henrik.ploug]

You can compare the pictures taken by each lens here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_1635_28

 

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_20_28u

 

Maybe you should consider the Sigma 20mm f1,8 also. It is the fastest of the three and it also gets good rankings:

 

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/Sigma/PRD_85099_3111crx.aspx

[roger.a]

I think the 17-40 probably is better than the 20mm - it's a much newer design. I tried a few test shots with the 20mm to compare against the 17-40, and wasn't really impressed.

 

I have always hated zooms, but I ended up buying the 17-40mm because it seemed to be the best available. I haven't regretted it.

 

It's not as good as my 135/2.0, but its not far behind my 50/1.4

[william_yu]

I used to own the 20 mm lense for my EOS 3, and I did not use it that much beyond the 28-70 2.8L I owned at the same time. I sold those to move to MF, and now move back to 35 mm digital, with a Canon 24 mm f2.8 for the full frame 1Ds II body. I have found that I use the 24 mm much more often than the 20 mm for landscape work. Comparing the 24 mm to the zoom, I like the prime much better for better sharpness, contrast, and less distortion (which I think is very important).

[liviu_ailincai]

do you mean between the 17-40 and 24 ?

because i am follow up interested in 20 mm

thanks a lot