Eos 20/2.8 vs Sigma 15-30

[levon_b]

Hi all,

 

I have been looking for something relatively wide on a budget, and ran across both of these. Both seem to get very mixed reviews, and I

am more of a portrait shooter so am reserving more money for a 50/1.4 and a 100/2. I just bought a 5D II and have been renting or

borrowing to figure out what I'll end up buying.

 

Is the 20/2.8 really that bad? I'll be using it primarily stopped down around f8 or smaller, and same goes for the Sigma. They're both in

roughly the same price ballpark and won't be used as much as the 50 or 100.

 

Thank you in advance!

 

Best regards,

Levon

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Judge for yourself:<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/311-sigma-af-15-30mm-f35-45-ex-dg-lab-test-report--review?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/311-sigma-af-15-30mm-f35-45-ex-dg-lab-test-report--review?start=1</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/151-canon-ef-20mm-f28-usm-lab-test-report--review?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/151-canon-ef-20mm-f28-usm-lab-test-report--review?start=1</a></p>

 

[levon_b]

hi there,

 

I read those reviews along with the one on the digital picture, but was hoping for some additional feedback. :-)

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>My copy of the 20/2.8 is no better than the 17-40 at 20mm (the extreme corners are noticeably soft and smeary on the 5D2), so there's not much point to it, if you can afford the 17-40. The 17-40 is good from 24 to 40mm, though, so it's quite a useful lens. The problem is that the corners are soft and smeary at the wide end, so you need to crop a bit for presentable landscape work. I'd recommend the 17-40 over the 15-30 since it takes filters, and polarizers are very useful for landscape work. If you are willing to put up with a bulbous front element, the 12-24 is more fun.</p>

 

[ashleypomeroy]

<p>I have never read a good word about the 20mm f/2.8, and the corner softness in the samples I have seen is unacceptable. I used to own a Sigma 15-30mm, and it was very sharp in the middle at 15mm when stopped down, but the edges were nothing special and I didn't like the colour. It had a distinctive "sigma yellow" that seems to be common with that generation of Sigma lenses, whereby the image assumed a slightly yellowy hue, and reds became a bit orange. My copy was softer in the right side of the image than the left, which is something that put me off Sigma lenses in general. It might be good on a crop body, but in that context there are smaller, more practical options.<br>

I have the same problem as you and have settled on two solutions. Firstly I have bought a second-hand Olympus 21mm f/3.5, which I use with an OM-EOS adapter. It is sharp in the centre at f/5.6 and is inoffensive in the corners at f/8, f/11, although not bitingly sharp. On a physical level it is very small. The major limitation is colour fringing, which is pronounced and hard to correct. And it is only f/3.5, but then again you have a 5D MkII, which has live view and a lovely ISO 1600. There are cheaper, wider manual focus lenses from the 1970s - a Tokina RMC 17mm, which is tested at Photozone.de, but frustratingly on a crop body, and I believe a Tamron 17mm as well - but I haven't used them.<br>

As I understand it the two uncompromised ultrawides that you can practically mount on your 5D are the Nikon 14-24mm and the Carl Zeiss 21mm. The former requires a special adapter because it does not have an aperture ring. The latter is available in native EOS mount. They are expensive albeit that they are worth the money. I cannot justify the expense of either lens and so my second solution is to never shoot wider than 24mm. I will miss shots that I could have taken if I had a 14mm lens; but I will miss shots that I could have taken if I had an 800mm lens, or if I had a helicopter.<br>

If you think in terms of the finished file rather than the process, there's always panorama stitching. Also of note is a 14mm f/2.8 lens design by Samyang, which is on the verge of release, and it is not much more expensive than a used Sigma 15-30mm; except that based on the samples I have seen here it has awful waveform-type distortion and might not be your cup of tea.</p>