Canon EF 20mm/2.8

[Compaq]

Does anyone have any first hand experience with this lens? I've read some mixed reviews. Is it comparable to L quality, or is it significantly worse? It's not an L lens, so I wouldn't expect L quality. But, is it a bad lens?

 

[analog.universe]

All of the reviews I read point to significantly worse. You can get better performance at 20mm out of the 17-40 f/4L, which is quite similarly priced. The 20mm prime vignettes heavily, and has poor edge performance throughout the range. The Sigma 20 suffers the same problems unfortunately.

 

[Compaq]

Well, darn it. Maybe you'll see me your 24mm/1.4 for around the same price?

I've seen 16-35mm/2.8 mk1 for as low as 5000NOK ($860), and a 20-35/2.8 for 4000 ($687). I'd be willing to pay 4000 for a new lens, but the gap isn't that big. Heck, maybe I should just look for a good and inexpensive 16-35 mk1 to get!

 

[analog.universe]

I put off buying that 24 for the longest time because I thought eventually I'd find something I liked that was cheaper... never happened

The Nikon 20mm 2.8D is wicked sharp, it can be adapted if you don't mind a little CA and manual everything. They can be had on eBay for like $300.
If you can find an old Zeiss Jena 20mm 2.8 Flektogon, they're in the $300-$500 range, and a very nice lens all around. Again manual everything cause you'll need to adapt it.

 

[Compaq]

Manual wouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for some tips!

 

[rexbobcat]

If I was you, I would buy a Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma equivilant. It's cheaper, has the same aperture, has more versatility, and has superior image quality.

 

[analog.universe]

If I was you, I would buy a Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma equivilant. It's cheaper, has the same aperture, has more versatility, and has superior image quality.

The Sigma has superior image quality, the Tamron maybe not... But they both distort more at 20mm than the primes discussed. May or may not matter depending on the application.

 

[Mot]

I have used the lens quite a bit and I all I can say is that it's quite an average and perhaps underwhelming lens. It does its job better than most Canon lenses that are cheaper and worse than most more expensive. It isn't particularly sharp but its priced accordingly.

I'm in the same boat as you, I need a new wide-angle so started looking out for a good zoom. The 17-40 f/4 or the 16-35 f/2.8 are my only real options for full frame if I stick with Canon, I found the Sigma 12-24 is just too soft for my liking and I want more substantial build quality than on the Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm. I'd used the 20mm f/2.8 quite extensively but I didn't feel f/2.8 was fast enough if I was stuck with a prime so had a look for a faster wide prime. While the 24mm f/1.4 was fast enough I don't feel it's wide enough and the 14mm f/2.8 is just too wide for broad application!

It puts me back to the 16-35mm f/2.8, that I tested at a recent expo and liked, or the 17-40mm f/4 that I think will be too slow. I can only see myself getting the 16-35, I could afford it 2 months ago but unfortunately my financial situation has changed so all buying has been postponed despite the fact that I have my current zoom on eBay! I'll probably get the Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 to temporarily fill the gap; They're only about £100!