ironcloud Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Yello~ I'm not sure if I can compare these two lenses...Since they are actually...different...but comments on these two lenses are both great...compare the sharpness...which is better? Since I can only buy one of them.....Thanks a lot~~!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_spence Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Forget sharpness (both are excellent). The real question should be what you're looking for in terms of coverage and what you would use them for. Do you need the extremely wide coverage of the 20? Or do you need something more moderate in the 35? Also consider your existing lens kit and where either lens would fill in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironcloud Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 Thanks Danny... Problem is that...with my lack of photography experience, I can't really tell the difference in term of coverage between these two lenses...since I've never seen these two focal length compared side by side...the only thing I know is that, theoretically 20 is wider than 35...sigh....anyhow....i'm about to use a wide-angle lense to shoot group of people (say 50 of them)...and looking for a wide space feeling...I'm sort of incline towards 35 (since is cheaper), I'm not sure if it is enough for my purpose...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emaxxman Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 I don't think the 20mm is a good lens for a large group portrait. I think the inherent distortion in a lens that wide would give an awkward rendition of the group. For large groups, I would probably go with the 35mm and just step back as far as needed. Both lenses are reputed to very sharp. Their strengths lie in their ability to be sharp wide open. However, it's all moot anyway since for your shot, you'll probably want to stop down to f/8 or more to make sure everyone is in focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_bolden Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Hey Stanley, I'm not sure that the 35 would be wide enough for your purposes (20 people plus alot of background). Since I have both, I would opt for the 20mm for that type of shot. sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironcloud Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 uhm...I'm now sorta pulled by both lenses to the left and to the right at the same time =D...you know what guys...since these two lenses are both good as you say, and all of you have good reasons to convince me...I'll just go to the store and try myself and feel the wideness before I make any decision~ Thanks a lot guys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magic1 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Split the difference. The 28/2 is considered even sharper that either. I do love my 20/2.8 though, I don't own the 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_green1 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 I think you should never buy a 20mm lens as your first wide angle. It's TOO wide for most purposes, and it gives an exaggerated wideangle perspective, which can be a great effect when you want it, but overbearing when you DON'T want it. To my mind, assuming that you already own a 50mm lens, you would be much better off with the perspective of a 28mm lens. If you DON'T already have a normal lens, then the 35mm is a good slightly wide/almost normal prime lens that could do nicely. And any of these lenses is plenty sharp. It's all about what you wish to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironcloud Posted November 18, 2003 Author Share Posted November 18, 2003 arg~ dilemma~!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguel_rodriguez3 Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 I am also relatively new to photography and I agree with Douglas, 20mm seem to be just too wide for portraits or indeed, any use where you are not especifically looking for that 'wide' effect. I really like the 28mm and I don't think you would have problems with that focal length. I guess that just going a little further back will bring everyone into the frame without much 'wide' distortion. so, in few words, get yourself a 28mm f2.8 and learn how to use it before you invest serious money in something wider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokkor fan Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 There is a reason there are so many 28mm primes in the world - and that is because they are a great wide ange lens. A 20mm is not a wide angle - it is an ULTRA-wide angle. It is most useful for architectural shots and interiors, not for general photography except when in very confined spaces or when a specific perspective is sought. The 28mm is cheap and very sharp, and if you subsequently like wide angles, get the 20mm later. 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