which wide-angle?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

hi guys,

i'm looking for a wide-angle lense at the moment and have a few questions.

the canditates are the 2.8 20mm and the 2.8 24mm.

i know that the 20mm is a beast of a lens and is very popular with everyone, but what about the 24mm? it seems to be a bit old in the tooth, but other than that its small, cheap and doesn't weigh much (which is a factor cos i can't be bothered carrying the weight of the world round with me). and it uses a standard 58mm filter.

photodo also gives it a much better rating than the 20mm (3.9 vs. 3.4).

i've already got the 1.8 85mm and plan to get the 1.4 50mm, so i figure the 3 would make a good, light travelling kit. (also have the 2.8 L 200mm for the long stuff).

i also figure that the ultra-wide fashion must surely die sometime and maybe a 24mm (which still gives a pretty good angle of view) is perhaps a "safer" bet.

aside from this question i was wondering if anyone out there has any experience with the new crumpler bags - i normally only use lowepro but i can't seem to find that 'ideal' bag in their line-up

thanks,

carl

-- carl weller (carlweller@yahoo.com), May 26, 2002

Answers

Carl,

I think that with your 50mm and 85mm the gap to 20mm is just too large. Also, while the 20mm is great it is too extreme a lot of the time. If you just want one lens then go for the 24mm. Alternatively if you really want the 20mm then add a 28mm f2.8 (very cheap second hand) or a 28mm f1.8 to give you 200 / 85 / 50 / 28 / 20 range.

Derek

-- Derek Linney (dlinney@aol.com), May 26, 2002.


The 20mm is a wide lens. Very wide. I love mine, but it sees little use because it takes a certain perspective to get a shot to look good with it. A 24 length might be a bit better overall.

-- (chris@photogenica.net), May 26, 2002.

If I could only have 1 WA lens, it would be a 24mm.

-- kenneth katz (socks@bestweb.net), May 26, 2002.

20mm isn't wide enough.

I keep saying this but no one seems to care. :-(

But if you do get the 20mm, you will definitely want something in between it an a 50mm.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), May 26, 2002.


Read some : http://www.photographyreview.com/reviewscrx.aspx.

-- Yakim Peled (yakim.peled@orange.co.il), May 27, 2002.


The 24mm is a lovely lens, takes sharp pics but isn't too wide, so as to add too much distortion.

-- Sarah Needham (sarah.needham1@orange.net), May 27, 2002.

I own the 24f2.8, the 28f2.8, and had the FD version of the 20f2.8. If I could only have I wide angle lens it would be the 24f2.8. I tell my photography students that the 24mm is the best buy in wide angles, because it is relatively inexpensive, very sharp, and yet still gives you that wide angle expanse and great depth of field of very wide angle lenses in a very compact lens size. It doesn't have the drawbacks of noticeable distortion, larger, more expensive filters, nor the problems of filter cut off encounted in wider lenses. I would strongly recommend the purchase of the Canon scalloped hood for maximum shading to retain lens contrast. As wide angle lens hoods are limited in the amount of shading possible without image cutoff, the use of only multicoated filters to prevent flair is very important when using wide angles. Finally to point out the obivious, the 24mm lens uses a 58mm filter size, the same as the 85f1.8 and 50f1.4 lenses. A savings in cost and weight of only having to have filters of one size. I find my Canon 24f2.8 to be an outstanding, a very sharp and contrasty lens, just like my Nikon 24f2.8AIS was before I sold my Nikon system.

-- Mike Dziak (BigLens2C@msn.com), May 27, 2002.

I had the Canon 20mm f2.8 and never really liked it. I am not sure that I can tell you technically why I didn't like it, I just didn't. I sold it and bought a used 24mm f2.8 and hood for half the cost of the used 20mm and hood. I absolutely love the 24mm. It is light, fast and the images that it produces are wonderful with minimal distortion, excellent contrast and a great look. It is a great and often overlooked Canon lens.

-- Richard Snyder (rsnyder@lc.edu), May 27, 2002.

Hi Carl,

I can confirm that the little 24 is a fine lens optically, and very light and compact. I have also tried a 24-85 Canon and find the prime far superior; more contrast and apparent sharpness, esp. at or near wide open. I'm not against zooms when they're necessary, understand.

My experience with 20/21 lenses is that they are great when needed, but are not often needed. The 24 is just enough less extreme that you can, if your tastes are like mine, keep it on your camera much of the time. Good luck.

-- Jonathan Barber (jbarber1@nycap.rr.com), May 27, 2002.


ok,

thanks everyone. it's always nice to get a little advice. i was leaning towards the 24mm - y'all have pushed me over the edge:)

carl

-- carl weller (carlweller@yahoo.com), May 29, 2002.



I'm still using mostly FD equipment, but I adore 20mm. Contrary to others, I use it probably 80 percent of the time for anything other than formal portraits. I'm doing mostly people photography (evironmental portraits), and mostly while I'm engaging them in conversation. I also have 24 and 28mm lenses, then skip the 35 to the 50, which I regard as a short telephoto.

I probably use the 24 the least of my wide angle lenses. I'll use the 28 for full-length portraits of women. The main reason I haven't gone wholly digital is because I'm so crazy about the 20mm view.

-- Kirk Darling (kdarling@mindspring.com), June 06, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ