# EF 20mm f1.8L VS. EF 14-24 f4L



## Daniel Flather (Aug 9, 2012)

As the topic reads.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 9, 2012)

I would be able to afford neither, but the 20mm f/1.8 sounds a lot more interesting. A lens that wide, with an aperture that large would really put it in a league of its own (I'm not counting the Sigma 20mm f/1.8, since it's not usable at any aperture, let alone wide open). I think I'm probably in the minority in this survey, though, as most people are drooling over the 14-24mm Nikon, and want the wider angles it provides.


----------



## sarangiman (Aug 9, 2012)

> most people are drooling over the 14-24mm Nikon, and want the wider angles it provides.



Not sure we're drooling over the wider angle. Just the orders of magnitude better edge-to-edge performance than any Canon wide-angle zoom.


----------



## AdamJ (Aug 10, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> I would be able to afford neither, but the 20mm f/1.8 sounds a lot more interesting. A lens that wide, with an aperture that large would really put it in a league of its own (I'm not counting the Sigma 20mm f/1.8, since it's not usable at any aperture, let alone wide open). I think I'm probably in the minority in this survey, though, as most people are drooling over the 14-24mm Nikon, and want the wider angles it provides.



I'm right with you. A good 20mm f/1.8 would be a very attractive lens to me, even more so if a new one came from Sigma because of the milder sticker shock.

A 14-24mm f/4 wouldn't attract me away from my Sigma 12-24mm, while an f/2.8 would probably be a little too pricey for a hobbyist like me to justify, though I'm sure it would be a big seller.


----------



## LostArk (Aug 10, 2012)

14-24 f/4 makes no sense whatsoever. 17-40 is perfectly fine for all intents and purposes. A 14-24 would have to be f/2.8 to pique my interest, but only if it had Godlike corner to corner sharpness. Even then, the featherweight 17-40 would probably be my choice, since any subject I'd be shooting wider than 24mm would be static and I'd have a tripod with me. UWA's distort people waaay too much for my taste, and in such an unflattering way. I'm seriously contemplating picking up an 8-15 fishy for UWA purposes instead of a 17-40 or 16-35.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 10, 2012)

It'd be hard for me to buy the 14-24L right now, because I have the 16-35L II which works brilliantly (although not as well as the 24L at 24mm). I do like the idea of the 20 f/1.8L though. I like primes.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 10, 2012)

We definitely need a fast lens that's wider than 24mm. A 20mm f/1.4 would be even better, though I don't like the idea of that being more than $2,000, which I suspect it would be.


----------



## AdamJ (Aug 10, 2012)

LostArk said:


> 14-24 f/4 makes no sense whatsoever. 17-40 is perfectly fine for all intents and purposes.



All _your_ intents and purposes, perhaps. 



LostArk said:


> UWA's distort people waaay too much for my taste, and in such an unflattering way. I'm seriously contemplating picking up an 8-15 fishy for UWA purposes instead of a 17-40 or 16-35.



I'm struggling to reconcile those two sentences!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 10, 2012)

LostArk said:


> 14-24 f/4 makes no sense whatsoever. 17-40 is perfectly fine for all intents and purposes. A 14-24 would have to be f/2.8 to pique my interest, but only if it had Godlike corner to corner sharpness. Even then, the featherweight 17-40 would probably be my choice, since any subject I'd be shooting wider than 24mm would be static and I'd have a tripod with me. UWA's distort people waaay too much for my taste, and in such an unflattering way. I'm seriously contemplating picking up an 8-15 fishy for UWA purposes instead of a 17-40 or 16-35.



It makes perfect sense for those who want a zoom lens from 14 to 24mm. If you don't like the 14-24 because of distortion of people, how is an 8-15 going to be better? Or do you mean you want one or the other?


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 10, 2012)

LostArk said:


> 14-24 f/4 makes no sense whatsoever. UWA's distort people waaay too much for my taste, and in such an unflattering way. I'm seriously contemplating picking up an 8-15 fishy for UWA purposes instead of a 17-40 or 16-35.



Buying an 8-15mm fisheye in favor of less distortion over the 16-35 or 17-40 makes no sense whatsoever. And UWA's only distort people if you allow them to. Sure if you get a foot away from someone at 17mm they may be distorted, but if you're careful you can avoid it, it's all distance/positioning. If you don't like what a 17-40/16-35mm does in terms of distorting proportions then you're going to absolutely hate the 8-15mm.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 10, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> We definitely need a fast lens that's wider than 24mm. A 20mm f/1.4 would be even better, though I don't like the idea of that being more than $2,000, which I suspect it would be.


A 20mm f/1.8 would definitely be $2k, since the Sigma is $700 and its an optical joke through f/2.8. Generally you can double the 3rd party price, but, here I think it'd be even higher. Going to f/1.4 would be equally brutal price wise.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 10, 2012)

LostArk said:


> 14-24 f/4 makes no sense whatsoever. UWA's distort people waaay too much for my taste, and in such an unflattering way. I'm seriously contemplating picking up an 8-15 fishy for UWA purposes instead of a 17-40 or 16-35.





Axilrod said:


> Buying an 8-15mm fisheye in favor of less distortion over the 16-35 or 17-40 makes no sense whatsoever. And UWA's only distort people if you allow them to. Sure if you get a foot away from someone at 17mm they may be distorted, but if you're careful you can avoid it, it's all distance/positioning. If you don't like what a 17-40/16-35mm does in terms of distorting proportions then you're going to absolutely hate the 8-15mm.



Actually, it makes perfect sense. He said "UWA's distort *people* way too much..." which is absolutely true. It is equally true that fisheye lenses do not distort people in that objectionable way that ultrawides do.


----------



## sach100 (Aug 10, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> LostArk said:
> 
> 
> > UWA's distort people waaay too much for my taste, and in such an unflattering way. I'm seriously contemplating picking up an 8-15 fishy for UWA purposes instead of a 17-40 or 16-35.
> ...



i'm guessing 8-15 for landscapes and other situations where people are not involved?


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 10, 2012)

A 14-24L (2.8 preferred) with the same IQ as the 24-70II and 70-200 2.8II would be awesome. 14-200 would then be covered.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 10, 2012)

Yes, if the 14-24 was f2.8 then that might attract a few more people to it. In UWAs a little zoom goes a long ways, 14mm to 24mm is huge, but at a cost of a few stops. I'd opt in for the 20/1.8 if it was on par with the amazing 24/1.4 Mrk 2.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 10, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Yes, if the 14-24 was f2.8 then that might attract a few more people to it. In UWAs a little zoom goes a long ways, 14mm to 24mm is huge, but at a cost of a few stops. I'd opt in for the 20/1.8 if it was on par with the amazing 24/1.4 Mrk 2.



I could live with F4 if the IQ was in line with the other two.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Aug 10, 2012)

I have a 20mm 2.8, and it is an amazing lens. However, drop down a stop and give it L quality... That would be a killer lens.

I know it seems like it is way too close to the 24 prime, but when you start getting wide angle, each mm gives it a VERY different look.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 10, 2012)

I would probably want to get an EF 14-24 f/2.8L if its image quality is an improvement over the EF 16-35 f/2.8 II. The latter is a little weak in IQ in the corners and at the long end.


----------

