wade_keenon1 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I'm thinking about adding a wider lens to my kit, and am trying to decide between a 20mm f/2.8 and a 17mm f/4.0. From standard view down, I currently have a 50mm 1.4 SSC, 35mm 2.0 SSC, and a 24mm 2.8 SSC. Would you choose the 20 or the 17 and why? Would you choose the FDn or the SSC and why? Thanks for your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerkko_kehravuo Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 What about 14 mm L? I have never tried, but should be good and interesting. I have experience only of 24 mm L, 50 mm L, 85 mm L and 300 mm L. At least these are pretty good. Kerkko K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Well "L" lenses of course are very nice but the 14 costs 3-6x what a 17 or 20 will cost. Get the 17mm f4, either version. The 20 is much too close to the 24. The difference you see between the 35 and 24 is kinda like the difference you will see from 24 to 17. This amount of view spread between lenses has always been ideal for me below 100mm. I used the Canon FD New 17mm f4 for over 10 years with awesome results. It is sharp and contrasty with only slight vignetting in the corners in rare situations. Flare control is exceptional for a wide angle lens. I now have a Nikon 14mm f2.8 ED which I do not regret switching to but it does have slight "moustache" distortion which every other 14mm lens seems to show as well except I have not specifically read this about the Canon version. I have never witnessed optical distortion in the 17mm, and I have done a fair bit of architectural photography with it. It is definitely a challenge to compose images well at 20mm and wider but the 17mm will only push you to learn. When you are able to create effective compositions it is very rewarding. I have quite a few sample images in my portfolio here. I always forget how you post images in this silly forum and I am too lazy to go and do a search, otherwise I would post one. I just wish the photo.net gurus were not as lazy as I. It seems to me the two versions are identical, so if you want ease of mounting then go with the bayonet, and if you want a mount that will last longer than you, get the breech-lock. Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Both are good lenses for Canon FD. The 20mm gives you a stop extra speed with no increase in size. If you are only to have one, I would vote for the 20mm. However, the 17mm would make a better step down from your 24mm. My pet peeve with these Canon lenses is that the whole barrel rotates when focusing. I prefer designs where the focusing ring rotates independently of the barrel. There is a kind of pronounced two-dimensionality to the shots produced with these lenses that I find difficult to deal with and more than a little frustrating. You don't get that kind of two dimensionality with the Pentax-M 15mm of the same period, or the newer VC 15mm Heliar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I love my 20 <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/ftb-20/index.htm"><p> FD 20</a><p> <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/blackae1/index.htm"> And more </a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w_t1 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Gene, great pic..how did you get it, were you walking or on a bicycle, or did you throw the arm down yourself? I can't imagine seeing something that small while driving in a car. I carry my camera when bicycling a lot, and I think I see more than in a car, it's a lot easier to stop anyway.....Tom in Seattle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirk_dom Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Get a 17. I have a 20 and a 14mm, and the creative possiblilities increase exponentially, the wider you get. I do almost all my wide - angle shooting with the 14, now. So: get the 17. But: Why not take the jump and go all the way to 14mm? It's not so expensive: I have a Sigma 14mm F3.5 for FD, which can be bought at KEH.com for some 350 dollars (Condition excellent. There are two or three on sale, now.) It's an extremely good lens, very sharp, contrasty, no light fall - off in the corners, and straight lines stay absolutely straight. This lens focuses up to some 4 '' from the front glass, and at F 22 then is sharp too infinity, which allows for truly awesome close - up results which you cannot get with any other lens. Since such a lens sees over more than double of what you normally notice when you watch with the naked eye, you need to practice some to master it. But if you want to play it safe and buy known quality, the Canon FD 17mm is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w_t1 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 do you work for KEH or get a kickback? :) I just checked, and there is only one "bargain" at $189. Hard to believe that much demand for the lens, I watch the fd lenses, they dont sell that quickly there. Tom 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