Any thoughts on the Canon 20/2.8?

[andy_gulati3]

I favor primes, and favor the 35mm focal length. To get this length on my XTi,

I've tried the 24/2.8 with mixed success. The 24 is slow to focus, hunts in low

light, and is not wide enough. I don't really want a wide angle zoom, since I

don't care about the 10-14 (also don't care about 35-55) range, and don't want

to compromise lens speed. The 20/2.8 seems to fit the bill - wide enough, fast

enough, and not too big or heavy. I would couple this lens with a 100/2. I have

a Sigma 30 if I need the normal view. Any thoughts on the 20 as a regular lens

on crop sensor?

 

Thanks, Andy

[zigzag]

Andy, I don't have the lens but much as been asked/written about it in the past: <a href="http://www.photo.net/search/?domains=Photo.net&q=Canon+20mm+2.8&sa=Google+Search&sitesearch=Photo.net&client=pub-1734703147688622&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23CCCCCC%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3ADDDDDD%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A45%3BLW%3A225%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fphoto.net%2Fv2graphics%2Flogo.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.photo.net%2F%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en#1006">Search</a>

[akajohndoe]

If money is not a major concern (I know, naive) then I would go with a 24/1.4L or a used 17-35/2.8L or a used first generation of the 16-35/2.8L.

 

I standardized on 77mm filters, and the new model 16-35/2.8l II is 82mm and the 20/2.8 is 72mm.

[bueh]

I like it a lot. Until I recently got the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM, it was my only wide angle and produced good pictures. Like you, I had the EF 24mm f/2.8 previously but sold it for the same reasons as you. The 20mm is a bit soft wide open (optically the 24mm is definitively better) and suffers from extreme flare when bright light sources are present, but overall I am very pleased with the look and perspective it produces on a crop-factor camera. It is easy to hand-hold and works well for portraiture, event and everyday photography. Unlike many wide angle zooms it is virtually free from distortion.

 

But if you can afford it, try also the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM which is a bit less wide, but offers stellar image quality and an extremely fast aperture for creamy, I-can't-believe-it's-not-medium-format bokeh.

[asher]

Apparently it compares very well to the 17-40mm f/4L lens @ 20mm (

<a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/index.htm">according to this review</a>), if you believe in MTF tests etc.<p>

 

I used one on a 20D for a while and was very pleased, for what my subjective opinion is worth. Below is a photo taken with that rig (my attempt to honor Lee Friedlander...). It also performed nicely wide open.<div></div>

[andy_gulati3]

I really thought about selling everything but the 100/2, and getting the 24/1.4, but I really didn't want the weight or size.

 

I had searched photo.net for the 20/2.8, and many had opinions but had never owned the lens, or owned the lens on FF. Some liked the lens on crop sensor and seemed to think the soft edges were diminished by the crop. Consistently people liked the sharpness above f/5.6, but that's pretty much where I'm at with the 24/2.8.

 

I wish there was a good wide-normal (less than ungainly) prime choice for crop sensor.

[bueh]

<blockquote><i>I really thought about selling everything but the 100/2, and getting the 24/1.4, but I really didn't want the weight or size.

</i></blockquote><p>

I have the 20mm and 24mm (and the 100mm), and they are both not that different. Sure, the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM is a little bit larger and heavier, but not really much and the handling is comparable to the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM (which is a surprisingly big lens). The 24mm is an excellent lens and you will not regret buying it.

[arie_vandervelden1]

I used a Canon 20/2.8 for a while on my 300D. Nice lens - very fast and decisive AF, sharp in the center, sharp in the corners when stopped down, a tad of red-green c/a which is easily corrected, excellent color, contrasty, lots of vignetting. A tad soft a f/2.8, sharp in the center at f/4, sharp edges at f/5.6, sharp corners at f/11. Works well for indoor shooting with flash.<P>

This lens now gathers dust because I now use a Tamron 17-50/2.8. The Tamron is as sharp in the center as the Canon at 20 mm, and sharper in the corners. Both lenses have equal speed (f/2.8) and weigh about the same. This zoom pretty much makes f/2.8 primes within the range obsolete, imho. That said, the 20/2.8 is a joy to shoot.

[joelh47]

I have owned the 20/2.8, bought used on eBay over 6 years ago, and think it is an excellent lens. Although I've used it very little in the past few years since acquiring a 17-40 f4 L, I've held onto it because it is relatively light and is the fastest wide angle lens I have. I still bring it out every so often to use with my 30D and 5D, and am still very happy with the image quality. There is the distortion you would expect of a wide angle in this range, and as someone mentioned, it is a bit soft wide open, but stopped down to f4 or 5.6, it is a very capable lens. This plus my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 gives me a nice set of fast prime lenses to use in many low-light situations.

[alan_myers]

I have and use the 20/2.8 a lot on my 30Ds and 10D. I like the moderately wide (32mm = on full frame) view. Yes, it sharpens up nicely stopped down a little.

 

It's definitely sharper than an older 17-35/2.8L I have. So if the fixed focal length works for you, I'd recommend it over the zooms. (I haven't compared it closely with the 17-40/4 or either of the 16-35s.)

 

There is an alternative, Sigma 20/1.8. But, it's huge by comparison to the Canon lens.

 

I have looked at and tested out the Tokina 12-24/4 recently. I might go with that lens, image quality is quite good and it seems a nice lens except for the lack of USM and the different AF/MF switching technique, but am not big on any "digital only" lenses.

 

I don't mind the 72mm filter on the 20/2.8, since it's the same on several of my other lenses and a filter size I already keep handy. (Plus it wouldn't be a big deal to step up to 77mm, if you preferred, except that would probably need a different lens hood. I've done just that on my 24mm TS-E to prevent vignetting.)

 

The 20/2.8 is part of my walk around/portrait kit. The other lenses in that kit are 28/18, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 macro.

 

I'm also a fan of primes, so really wish Canon (or someone) offered a 17mm prime (there's an older Tokina 17/3.5, no longer produced but occasionally on the used market).

[andy_gulati3]

Yes, a 17 would be perfect, and a good mate to my Sigma 30. But seeing that that is fantasy land, here are my 4 current plans...

 

1. Buy nothing, and have my Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 calibrated. Use the Sigma and the 100/2 for normal/travel. Throw in the Sigma 30 if I have special low light needs.

2. Buy the 20/2.8, absorb the cost, and try the 20 and 100 for normal/travel.

3. Split about even by getting rid of the 24/2.8, 17-35 and 50/1.8, for the 20/2.8.

4. Get rid of the 17-35, 24/2.8, 30 and 50, and pay the difference for the 24/1.4.

 

Number 4 is SO tempting, but number 3 is good too. I would have the Sigma 30 if the Canon 20 is indeed only good at f/4 up.

[bueh]

<blockquote><i>Yes, a 17 would be perfect, and a good mate to my Sigma 30. But seeing that that is fantasy land, [...]

</i></blockquote><p>

Why is that so? I had the Tokina AT-X 17mm f/3.5 AF lens for my film Nikons (where it was a ultra-wide angle) and was always surprised how good the lens was. It has virtually no distortion, is pretty sharp and highly flare-resistant. If you need a prime this wide, I can highly recommend it. It is available on the used market and pretty inexpensive. I had the older version with a fixed lens hood and I guess the latest Pro version is even better.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>2. Buy the 20/2.8, absorb the cost, and try the 20 and 100 for normal/travel.</i></blockquote><p>

I used this combination a lot. It's a good choice, but from time to time I added a third lens, a fast 50mm prime when telephotography was not expected. Your 30mm f/1.4 could be also a good third alternative.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>Get rid of the 17-35, 24/2.8, 30 and 50, and pay the difference for the 24/1.4.</i></blockquote><p>

Well, the 24mm f/2.8 definitively can go. There is also not much use for the 17-35mm. Get the improved version of the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) with <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr> and you have a great and lightweight backup wide angle. Unless you have the more valueable metal bayonet version, selling the 50mm will not bring much, so I would keep this useful lens until you upgrade to the f/1.4 version in the future. The 24mm f/1.4 replaces the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, so this lens can be sold, too. So if you are in the mood for some serious changes in your lens line-up, go for this plan!

[andy_gulati3]

Since I "went digital" in 2001, of my favorite pics, about 75% were around FF 35mm. Who knows, maybe if I had a good sub-35 option, maybe more favs would be wide, but somehow I doubt it. The 20/2.8 should be good for most (everyday) shots, the Sigma 30 (about 15% of my favs) would continue to serve as my low-light normal (I need a good lens for receptions and events). I don't do much with FF 80 (but keeping the cheapy 50 seems to make sense), but the 100/2 and 1.4 TC should cover the balance (especially music performance, and portrait - the typical needs). I can see running with 20/30/100. While 24/100 is attractive, the price is high and the FL a bit long at the wide end. The 18-55 feels like a lame complement to the stellar 24/1.4.

[bueh]

Well, the 20mm is equivalent to 32mm and the 24mm is equivalent to 38.5mm -- so there is no exact match for a 35mm field-of-view. I like the angle-of-view of the 20mm on my 20D and it's a wonderful lens for everyday shots, but if image quality (i.e., resolution and sharpness wide open) is paramount, there are possibly better lenses. Try it if you can and see if it fits you style, as I said, it is bigger than you might expect. I guess since I recently got the 24mm f/1.4, I will not use this lens much anymore and probably sell it when I made up my mind.

 

The 24mm f/1.4 is noticeably better and one of the unique lenses only Canon offers. It produces a beautiful look, but is much more expensive than most other lenses. However, if you have the chance, try out also this lens -- awesome pictures are more or less guaranteed!

[andy_gulati3]

No prime is an exact match. I just like the 35mm range, and maybe slightly wider. I like people shots, with an opportunity to incorporate background. I also like candids, so good AF is essential and enough width to capture the scene. The bigger and heavier the gear, the less candid I become. So far XTI/Sigma 30 is small enough, but not always quick or wide enough. Sometimes I resort to my SD700IS for decent candids. I can fit that camera in the palm of my hand. I've messed around with the XTi/15/2.8 combo, which is wonderfully light, and certainly can capture a scene, but can be distractingly distorted.

 

I was looking for the 20/2.8 to the walkaround/candid lens and the Sigma 30 to be the composition lens - affording enough time to properly capture the image, since AF and DoF can be quite finicky. Maybe I can wrap up both needs in one lens like the 24/1.4. It would be nice to travel with just 2 primes and the Elph. Do you think you could live with 24 as your widest?

[bueh]

<blockquote><i>Do you think you could live with 24 as your widest?

</i></blockquote><p>

I'll see. I haven't used the 24mm much and I will shoot a lot this weekend (portraiture, event and party) and see you well it works. But when I had the 24mm f/2.8 I found it not wide enough, so I guess the 24 f/1.4 might be a bit limiting, too. However, I also had my share of problems with the slow <abbr title="autofocus">AF</abbr> on the f/2.8, and since the f/1.4 focuses much faster and produces so outstanding pictures, I guess I will like it. I am planning to go full-frame maybe in the next year, and I had already decided that the 20mm will be too wide then and that I will sell it anyway. I had thought that I would get the 35mm f/1.4, but then I got a nice offer for the 24mm f/1.4 I couldn't refuse....

<br> 

<blockquote><i>I've messed around with the XTi/15/2.8 combo, which is wonderfully light, and certainly can capture a scene, but can be distractingly distorted.</i></blockquote><p>

The EF 20mm f/2.8 USM is noticeably larger and heavier than the 15mm fisheye. It is not exactly a small lens, especially not on a XTi/400D -- though the 24mm f/1.4 will look huge, too. The Tokina 17mm is also not tiny, but weights not that much. Consider also the kit zoom on its wider end focal length, while it is not fast, with <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr> it should be good to hand-hold.

[andy_gulati3]

I'd be interested to see how you make out with the 24/1.4 this weekend. My brain is currently locked on the 20/2.8, especially with your note...<p>

 

<center><i>

when I had the 24mm f/2.8 I found it not wide enough

</i></center><p>

 

I have no plans to go FF any time soon, but if I were the 35/1.4 most likely would be in my sites. I combo of 35/135 would attract me, and I guess I'm trying to achieve that combo on crop with 20/100.<p>

 

Perhaps I could help you off-load that 20/2.8!

[dogbert]

As a thought from left field, Pentax make a 21 mm "limited" pancake prime. It is supposed to be of very high quality. With the price of Pentax bodies (either a K100D Super or K10D) being so cheap at the moment it would only cost a little more to get a Pentax body with a 21 mm pancake prime. It would make a great street shooting rig, and as an added bonus would come with shake reduction as well.

[andy_gulati3]

Funny you should mention Pentax and pancakes. I've always been enamored of the pancake lenses, but I was just mounting and handling my various Canon lenses, and what I found was that I liked the feel of lenses about 3 inches in length (not much bigger, and certainly nothing that extends for zoom). Such lenses give me a variety of handhold options. Those options are diminished with lenses like my 24/2.8 and 50/1.8. The 20/2.8 might end up being just the right length. And if it's at least as (AF) speedy as the equally sized 100/2, I might be happy with that lens.