Considering 20mm lens

[andreasb]

<p>I am not a pro but have been taking classes with demanding instructors who have pushed me very hard and have made a dramatic improvement in my skills. As a result, I am much more demanding of myself, my results and my gear. This brought up some issues I have been working on solving for the last year. Here is the gear I am using:<br>

Canon 7D<br />Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS<br />Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-OS<br />Canon 17-40mm f/4<br />Canon Primes: 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8<br>

I started using primes because the results for my cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens were so much better than any of the zooms that I frequently find myself unsatisfied with the results of the zooms and have switched more and more to primes as much as is practical.<br>

I am considering a Canon 20mm f/2.8 or a Sigma 20mm f/1.4 because I need something fairly wide at a reasonable price. Both of these lenses have mixed reviews and I find myself hesitating to buy one. The rest of the primes I have listed were relatively highly recommended and have worked out great for me. I shoot mostly in a photojournalistic style and am curious if the problems discussed are the result of people's desire for absolute perfection, or if they are, from a practical standpoint, just not that significant. Here is what I have read about these lenses online:<br>

Canon 20mm f/2.8<br />Soft around the edges<br />Lifeless colors<br />Bad detail<br>

Sigma 20mm f/1.4<br />Soft (Isn't this to be expected at f/1.4? Should it not improve stopped down?)<br />Inaccurate focus<br />Bad detail<br />Bad contrast<br>

These are, of course, just the complaints. There are many more good reviews also. Are most of the issues listed the result of not understanding the nature of the lenses and how to use them or are there inherent challenges in making this kind of lens work well?</p>

 

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I used to own 20/2.8 and I do own Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. The two zooms are sharper than the prime, even wide open. I sold the prime after it gathered dust for a few years. I'd skip it if I were you. This lens is much more fun with film.</p>

<p>FWIW, the prime does have excellent colors and microcontrast. But it's got soft edges, flares very badly, bokeh is rough, and it vignettes heavily. Simply put, it doesn't do anything your zoom doesn't do.</p>

[matthijs]

Just to confuse the issue... There's a Voightlander 20/3.5 which gets pretty good reviews.

 

On the plus: tiny, sharp at f8, superbly built

 

On the minus: soft wide open, manual focus

 

It was on my shortlist until I bought the cheap, small, decent EF 28/2.8.

 

All the best, Matthijs.

[esfishdoc]

<p>Everything is a compromise and there are so many choices. Don't forget you can rent a lens to see if you like it enough to buy one. Lensrentals.com is great.<br>

The perfect lens fitting your requirements (well... OK.. nothing is perfect) might just be the Zeiss 21 2.8. I've used this for a couple weeks in Alaska and Montana and swore to buy one. (haven't yet... so many lenses.. so little time) The downside is the price... about 1800 new. It is a manual focus which was not a problem for me. If you know you can not afford one do not rent one or use one... it will spoil you! :)<br>

You didn't mention the Canon 24 1.4 II. Consider that in the mix.<br>

Good luck with your search.<br>

Richard</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>You get what you pay for. From what I have seen the Canon cheap wide angle lenses are not that great these days. They used to do great (non L series) wie angle primes like the 24 F2 in the Fd range but these have largely disappeared with EF. I did buy the 35 F2 which is probably the best of the Canon 20/28/35 non L series lenses but I am quite disappointed with it and rarely use it as my 24-70 F2.8 is close enough (indeed even my 16-35 F2.8 II is almost as good at 35mm and this lens is best at the wider end). However if you want a good 20mm lens then things get expensive. You can but the Zeiss or get and older C/Y fit contax lens or similar and use an adaptor. In the Canon range you can obviously get the L series 24mm but this is much more expensive. Personally I have just added the 17mm F4 TS lens which is great but very big and expensive.<br>

This site may be of interest as he tests lots of wide angle lenses</p>

<p>http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html</p>

[andreasb]

<p>Thank you all very much for your input!<br>

I am surprised at what you have told me about the Canon 20mm lens. My cheap, $90, plastic 50mm f/1.8 does a really good job and the 28mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 do even better. I had really hoped the 20mm f/2.8 would be similar.<br>

According to the link that Philip posted above, the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 does significantly better than the Canon lens. Has anyone had any experience with the Sigma lens?</p>

[michael_linn]

<p>Your depth of field with a 20mm or 21mm at say, f8, kind of makes the autofocus issue moot.<br>

You might consider some of the older classics using an adapter.<br>

Here is an example that still does the job. Harald Sund made it famous in the 70's.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakerollo/sets/72157605062394831/</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>First of all, I can't believe you have three zoom lenses in the same range. I think you have one of the best options in your Canon EF 17-40/4 L. If you really aren't happy with it then your best bet will be one of the manual focus, manual aperture, stopped-down metering lenses from other manufacturers.</p>

<p>The one I recommend is the fairly affordable Nikon 20mm f2.8 AIS. I have used many Nikon lenses on my Canon DSLRs. If you have a better budget then Contax/Zeiss and Leica may be worth looking at. In the super budget range is the excellent Canon EF 17mm f4 TS-E.</p>

[andreasb]

<p>John, I am not unhappy with the two 17-50mm lenses or the Canon 17-40mm lenses and use them often. Two of the three zooms will be traded in next time I have a need.</p>

<p>Much of my shooting is at high ISO so the primes help me in the large aperture department. The interesting thing I keep noticing is that my photos are less noisy looking with the primes than the zooms. Since I can use lower ISO settings with the primes than the zooms, this is probably a good explanation for it. I get great results around f/2.0-f/2.2 with all three of my primes.</p>

<p>When all settings are equal, however, I still notice the results are reliably better with the primes than the zoom lenses. I am not looking at my photos at 100%. I am looking at the full photo that fits in my monitor. The image quality is still noticeably better with the primes than the zooms.</p>

<p>Since it would be nice to have something wider than the 28mm f/1.8 on my crop sensor camera, I thought I would get some feedback on the affordable Canon and Sigma 20mm lenses. As I do often rely on auto focus, it sounds like there is no good, practical, affordable solution here. I will have to stick with my zooms for wide angle shots.</p>

<p>I really appreciate all the feedback!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You seem to be kind of "picky" about lenses you've never shot without being very discriminating -- three lenses in the same range seems a little strange.<br /> In regards to your comparisons of the lenses in question -- You really can't believe everything you read on the internet - there are all kinds of people out there who never found a lens up to their standard, some of them are fanboys/girls of particular exotic lens makers, others just mean-spirited and bitter. [i acknowledge that there are pollyannas out there too.]<br /> <br /> I agree with John that your EF 17-40mm f/4 should really work well for the 20mm range if you get your use of it under control.</p>

<p>My old Nikkor 20mm f/4 lens remains one of my favorite wide angles on my Nikon film equipment. It (20mm f/4 (the 52mm Ø filter one)) will fit my APS-C cameras with an adapter. However, there is a rear projection on the lens that will not clear the mirror on a 35mm-sensor Canon camera. The projection could be cut off, since it seems to be only for protection of the rear of the lens, but I hate to butcher old lenses. I am not sure about the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 and whether it will fit the 'FX' bodies or not<br /> I'd recommend one of the APS-C (DX) ultrawides (10-20mm roughly), but your idea that only primes will do, leaves you little choice but the lenses you ask about. 18-20mm is about as wide as most manual-focus or AF primes go, unless they are fisheye lenses.<br /> I'd personally get the Canon EF 20mm f/2.8, but you will have to understand that there is no such thing as a "perfect" lens and any lens wider than 28mm or so will especially encounter a number of compromises that have to be made to get there in the first place. Indeed, ALL lenses are compromises in one or another directions. As Katherine Hepburn said, "You can't have it all."</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Andreas,</p>

<p>I think you are correct that the ultrawide range is not one of the strengths of lenses available in the EOS mount. The Sigma and Canon 20mm are not stellar and the zooms will "do" but require hefty stopping down to get sharp corners. I think the best options are the Nikon 14-24mm zoom (but look at the price and relatively high distortion!) and the Zeiss ZE 21mm and 18mm (manual focus) lenses. The Zeiss 21mm is particularly good, but very large and expensive. There also is the Tokina 16-28mm but it is hard to get much information on this lens although the chatter I have read is good, but without real tests it is difficult to assess. I am not convinced by the Voigtlander 20mm either, which is a pity as it is a pretty and well-made, small lens.</p>

<p>I suggest you check out the Canon 24/2.8 and 24/1.4 and the Zeiss ZEs.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Andreas</p>

<p>I forgot the Canon TSE lenses, 17 and 24mm, which are superb. Personally I think these are expensive white elephants for most people (rent them - don't buy them) but few can argue with their performance.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am not sure the 17mm TS/E is a white elephant. I got mine in January 2011 and so far have saved 760 shots taken with this amazing lens. It even gives me three focal lengths 17mm on my 5DII, 22mm on my 1DIIN and 27mm on my 7D. It is a little bit more fiddly on the 7D due to the flash in the prism. I am not saying it is a solution for everyone because of the price but it is a fantastic lens.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Congratulations to JDM von Weinberg for being the first person to bring up Katherine Hepburn in these forums. She's been long overdue. And the way she handled that Kodak K-100 in Summertime....</p>

<p><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cwkM0jdVSWc/TAEac16r88I/AAAAAAAABRo/dD1Xuq_9sf4/s1600/summer1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>(Sigma 20mm f/1.4? I think you mean the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. Or you might mean the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.)</p>

[andreasb]

<p>You are correct, Alan. It is the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. My mistake - I'm sorry.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for all the input. This turned out more complicated than I thought it was going to be. I will stick whith what I have.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I really think that you "have chosen wisely," Andreas.</p>

<p>As for Katharine Hepburn, well, I actually bring her up <em>all</em> the time (Google™ "katharine hepburn" here and you will see I am not exaggerating).</p>

<p>Not only is her statement about the nature of "contradiction" even better than <a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm">Mao's</a>, she is definitely one of the all-time classy persons.</p>

[matthijs]

Katharine Hepburn

 

Now there's a lady with equal parts style, class and guts.

 

We should mention her more often.

 

(-:

 

Matthijs.

 

(sorry for the hijack)

[andreasb]

<p>Careful or you will make other prominent Hepburns jealous.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Rightly so, rightly so...</p>