Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Forums · RMNP

Canon 20mm f/2.8 lens opinions

Discussion

8 replies
Posted by Bret Edge on March 13, 2006 at 9:46 PM
I'm doing an overhaul of the lenses in my bag and am moving to the 24-105mm lens for most work, eliminating the need to carry my 28-70mm and 28-135mm lenses. However, I really like shooting at 20mm and am thinking of buying the Canon 20mm f/2.8 prime lens to replace my 20-35mm zoom lens. Online reviews have been mixed. Has anyone worked with this lens? If so, what are your thoughts? Any other 20mm primes I should consider that don't cost an arm and a leg (i.e. 20mm f/1.8)?

Thoughts, comments and suggestions are appreciated!
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 13, 2006 at 11:24 PM
Hey Bret, talk to Jerry about this. If I remember correctly, Ian has a Canon 20mm and Jerry got a Tokina, and the latter held up well, even surpassed the Canon in the lack of lens curvature. I might have the lenses wrong and they were 17mm's they were comparing, but it's worth dropping him a note or a call.
Posted by Scott Borger on March 13, 2006 at 11:37 PM
If you do decide to go with that 20mm Canon, there is a guy selling it on Craigslist for $625.
Posted by Bret Edge on March 14, 2006 at 9:27 AM
Todd: I think Jerry had the 17mm Tokina, but I'll email and ask. Thanks for the tip. Anyone else have any comments on this lens? For clarification, I am NOT interested in the 20mm f/1.8 lens (too much dough). I'm considering the Canon 20mm f/2.8.

Thanks, folks!
Posted by Jody Grigg on March 14, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Bret (aka Georgia Mountain Boy :razz: ), I have had my Canon 20mm f/2.8 for about 3 years or more and have never had any problems with it. Like it a great deal, I use it a lot during the summer months for wildflower/landscape shots.
Posted by Bret Edge on March 14, 2006 at 11:20 AM
I didn't realize there was such a minimal price difference between the 20mm prime and the 17-40mm L zoom. Looks like I'll just go with the 17-40mm lens.

Open to any thoughts on the 17-40mm lens, if anyone cares to offer them up.
Posted by Scott Borger on March 14, 2006 at 11:32 AM
I have the 17-40L and I love it. It has great reviews, better than those of the 20mm. You also get the 3mm bonus, which is huge at only 20mm.
Posted by Bret Edge on March 14, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Good to know. That is yet another reason to go with the 17-40mm lens. Thanks, Scott. It seems to be more resistant to flare than many zooms, too.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 14, 2006 at 9:26 PM
Bret,
Here's one taken last Fall with the 17-40 at 20mm (FF).
Really bad flare :biggrin:

http://pelzmann.smugmug.com/photos/59944246-L.jpg

Great lens on a 1.6 crop sensor. My copy suffers on the edges with FF (even at f/8).