# Looking for an wideangle lens about 20mm



## daniela (Jun 8, 2014)

For my crop Cameras I own the Tokina 12-24mm 4.0. But I need an wideangle lens for my 6D too. The 24mm 2.8 IS from Canon is ordered. But I´d like to get one about 20mm too.... 

But which one? An 2000€ prime is to expensive. The highest price is 1000-1200€, I´d like to spend for ist.
T_he Sigma 20mm? 
Or should I wait for the 16-35mm 4.0 from Canon and send the 24mm back?_

_Does anybody know, how the old 17-35mm L USM zoom lens performs on the 6D? I still own one - bought about 20years ago_.

Please give me your advice!

Thanks
Daniela


----------



## Khalai (Jun 8, 2014)

If you really want a prime, Zeiss 21mm or Voigtlander 20mm comes to mind. Canon 20mm is just as good (or bad, depending on how critical you are) as 17-40L. Personally, I myself am waiting for the new 16-35/4L IS, as the MTF and samples looks very promising (almost impressive).

17-35/2.8L should do fine, but it's an aged lens and image corners won't be much (or mush?  ) to rave about...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 8, 2014)

daniela said:


> For my crop Cameras I own the Tokina 12-24mm 4.0. But I need an wideangle lens for my 6D too. The 24mm 2.8 IS from Canon is ordered. But I´d like to get one about 20mm too....
> 
> But which one? An 2000€ prime is to expensive. The highest price is 1000-1200€, I´d like to spend for ist.
> T_he Sigma 20mm?
> ...



I have the voigtlander 20mm color skopar 2 its an excellent small and light 20mm pancake MF lens on full frame
its well worth checking out
I also really like 20mm on full frame


----------



## yellowkamper (Jun 8, 2014)

Don't dismiss the 16-35 f2.8 this was taken with it, I have a 20x16 print and it has always done well in competitions.and for a low cost the Canon 20mm f2.8 is good for landscapes with it curved depth of field.


----------



## daniela (Jun 8, 2014)

Ok, I found one dealer, who sells the Voigtländer 20mm.
What would you do to shoot landscaper?

Canon 24mm 2.8 IS and Voigtlander 20mm 3.5
or wait for the new Canon 16-35 4.0 ?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 8, 2014)

daniela said:


> Ok, I found one dealer, who sells the Voigtländer 20mm.
> What would you do to shoot landscaper?
> 
> Canon 24mm 2.8 IS and Voigtlander 20mm 3.5
> or wait for the new Canon 16-35 4.0 ?


The new Canon lens is really optimized for video, so don't expect too much. 
I have a old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that I picked up used for $125. Its a pretty good lens if you can find one. They do pop up on ebay, but the price also seems to have popped up to around $400..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tokina-AT-X-PRO-17mm-f3-5-Aspherical-AF-MF-Lens-For-Canon-EF-mount-worldwidefree-/301207230423?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item46215997d7


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 8, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The new Canon lens is really optimized for video, so don't expect too much.



Which new Canon lens is optimized for video? The 24 IS or the 16-35 IS?
On what basis are you making this comment?


----------



## Khalai (Jun 8, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The new Canon lens is really optimized for video, so don't expect too much.
> ...



Wondering the same. According to photozone.de, new 10-18 from Canon is quite impressive. 16-35/4L is surely to be even better (meaning decent corners even wide open). If you were referring to IS, how is that solely video optimized?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 8, 2014)

Khalai said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



+1. Especially the "don't expect too much" part.


----------



## nc0b (Jun 8, 2014)

Don't rule out the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5. I bought a mint 18mm on eBay for $999.00. I sold my Canon 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 lenses since the corners were awful on full frame. It isn't hard to zone focus an 18mm, you can use the green dot focusing aid, and EXIF data is correct. If the vignetting is a problem, stop it down to f/8. This Zeiss is relatively small and isn't too heavy compared to the Zeiss 21mm. If you put any stock in Ken Rockwell's reports, it is a viable alternative to the Zeiss 21mm. http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/18mm-f35.htm


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 9, 2014)

daniela said:


> But I need an wideangle lens for my 6D too.



If you want to shoot stopped down (in very good light or with a tripod) at f8+ have a look at the 17-40L which should sell cheap now and afaik even has a Canon cashback on it. With small apertures the image quality is fine and on par with the 16-35L2, but the 17-40L has superior flare resistance for night time shots.


----------



## yorgasor (Jun 9, 2014)

I love my Zeiss 21mm, it's been a fantastic landscape lens. I got a refurb off of ebay for around $1300, it was in perfect shape.


----------



## pwp (Jun 9, 2014)

Daniella, your old 17-35 _might _be a good copy but things have moved a long way in the 20 years since that lens replaced the mostly unloved 20-35 f/2.8 way back in 1995. I had the 17-35 which was OK on EOS-1n film bodies but my first "real" DSLR sensor on an original 1Ds just laughed at it. The results were awful. 

A great value wide is the 17-40L f/4. It's not much chop wide open, but even one stop down to f/5.6 it's a match for my very good copy of the 16-35 f/2.8II. At f/11 it outperforms my 16-35 f/2.8II. 

Spend a bit of time over at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ where there are 100's of independent user-reviews of just about any lens you could name. It's well organized and could be helpful locating a suitable 20mm for you.

-pw


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 9, 2014)

daniela said:


> Ok, I found one dealer, who sells the Voigtländer 20mm.
> What would you do to shoot landscaper?
> 
> Canon 24mm 2.8 IS and Voigtlander 20mm 3.5
> or wait for the new Canon 16-35 4.0 ?



something else to consider is filters.

the Voigtlander takes 52mm filters
this means high end B&W CPL or ND filters will cost you $50 instead of $300+ each
these filters also happen to match the 40mm pancake and on full frame the 20mm voigtlander + the 40mm pancake make a really nice light small combo, i often take those and the 85 for portaits if i'm travlleing light

another nice thing with the voigtlander is aperture selection is electronic and done the same as for any canon lens
its only focus that is manual 

if you want the voigtlander also look around for second hand ones i see people sell these from time to time with little or no use on them


----------



## eml58 (Jun 9, 2014)

You don't mention Primary use, so I'll assume Landscape/Buildings.

I own & use both Primes & Zooms in the 8-24 range (Canon 8-15f/4, Canon 16-35f/2.8, Canon 24f/1.4, Zeiss 15f/2.8, Zeiss 21f/2.8, TSE 17 II & TSE 24 II.

For general walk around the zooms work just fine, have some issues with purple fringing & CA on the 16-35 but can mostly be fixed in post.

For dedicated time no issue Landscape work, the Zeiss 15 & 21 are superb, better than anything Canon can offer with the exception of the TSE lenses, but, your stuck with Manual Focus, with Live View I don't find this an issue.

For anything that includes Buildings, the TSE lenses are the way to go, I use them where I want DOF throughout the Image front to back.

If I was to select just the one best Lens for all round excellence, the Zeiss 21f/2.8, I use this on the 5DMK III, the 1Dx & now the Sony a7r, great piece of Kit.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 9, 2014)

eml58 said:


> You don't mention Primary use, so I'll assume Landscape/Buildings.
> 
> I own & use both Primes & Zooms in the 8-24 range (Canon 8-15f/4, Canon 16-35f/2.8, Canon 24f/1.4, Zeiss 15f/2.8, Zeiss 21f/2.8, TSE 17 II & TSE 24 II.
> 
> ...



If you have the 17mm TS-E where do you use the 24mm? Is it when you need the added sharpness (vs 1.4x) or added depth of field (f/3.5 vs f/5.6) or use of filters. Can you post some illustrations?
I have purchased both the TS-Es recently, and I know the 17mm will definitely find ample use in architectural photography, which I like doing a lot. It had been a dream lens for me. But I purchased the 24mm mostly to compare, and I was wondering if there is any justification in keeping it.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Jun 9, 2014)

What do you shoot? Where do you go? How much gear do you want to carry? Do you orient toward zooms or primes?


----------



## Radiating (Jun 9, 2014)

As far as ultra wide angle lenses go there are only a hand full from any manufacturer that aren't terrible.

Here's the complete list:

Full Frame:
Zeiss 21mm f/2.8
Zeiss 18mm f/3.5
Canon 17mm f/4.0 TS-E L
Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
Canon 14mm f/2.8 II L
Samyang 14mm f/2.8

Crop:

Canon 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 EOS M
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6

All other ultra wide angle lenses have some sort of severe image quality flaw or flaws. Considering your aperture, focal length and price requirements this slightly narrows the list:

Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (used)
Zeiss 18mm f/3.5
Canon 17mm f/4.0 TS-E L (used)
Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8

Crop:

Canon 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 EOS M
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 

If you want good autofocus this narrows the list even more:

Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 9, 2014)

Radiating said:


> As far as ultra wide angle lenses go there are only a hand full from any manufacturer that aren't terrible.



You think the EF-S 10-22 is terrible? Not that the OP is looking for EF-S lenses, but I asked since you include them in your list.
I think it is actually pretty good, and I have used it for more than 2 years.


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > As far as ultra wide angle lenses go there are only a hand full from any manufacturer that aren't terrible.
> ...



He missed quite a few of the crop zoom lenses. I agree with you on the 10-22.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 9, 2014)

daniela said:


> Ok, I found one dealer, who sells the Voigtländer 20mm.
> What would you do to shoot landscaper?
> 
> Canon 24mm 2.8 IS and Voigtlander 20mm 3.5
> or wait for the new Canon 16-35 4.0 ?


Simply wait for your new 16-35mm f4L IS


----------



## eml58 (Jun 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> If you have the 17mm TS-E where do you use the 24mm? Is it when you need the added sharpness (vs 1.4x) or added depth of field (f/3.5 vs f/5.6) or use of filters. Can you post some illustrations?
> I have purchased both the TS-Es recently, and I know the 17mm will definitely find ample use in architectural photography, which I like doing a lot. It had been a dream lens for me. But I purchased the 24mm mostly to compare, and I was wondering if there is any justification in keeping it.



I initially purchased the 17TSE, after a month I thought I'de get the 24TSE as the 17 felt too wide, plus at the time my Lee Filter system could only be used on the 24TSE & not the 17 TSE.

I now find I use the 24 very little, and I've solved the Filter System for the 17 via the Wonderpana system.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> If you have the 17mm TS-E where do you use the 24mm? Is it when you need the added sharpness (vs 1.4x) or added depth of field (f/3.5 vs f/5.6) or use of filters. Can you post some illustrations?
> I have purchased both the TS-Es recently, and I know the 17mm will definitely find ample use in architectural photography, which I like doing a lot. It had been a dream lens for me. But I purchased the 24mm mostly to compare, and I was wondering if there is any justification in keeping it.



Keeping the TS-E 24 while having the TS-E 17 is mostly an economic decision. If you can afford keeping both, it's a great combination. The TS-E 24 can also tilt more than the 17. The TS-E 24 has better resolution than the 17 and the difference is even greater with a TC attached to the 17. I tend to use the 17 more indoor or for buildings and the 24 more outdoor. I also use the 24 more for stitching, just because the UWA shots tend to be more interesting with a stronger foreground element and I have more difficulty keeping the element strong with a 17 without distorting it too much when stitching.

I've mounted a 1.4x to the 17 just to see that it works, but I didn't like it all that much. Mostly because it interferes/or comes close to interfering when the rear element (near MFD, if I remember correctly).


----------



## NancyP (Jun 12, 2014)

I am in love with the Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 ZE. Sharpness, color, microcontrast, even out to the edges.

I found a clean used copy of Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 ZE at my local dealer for $1,200.00 . No lens hood, but I don't care about using aftermarket hoods and caps - in fact the OEM cap is not that great, I put a beefy Tamron 82mm pinch cap on it instead, and keep the dainty OEM cap for spare. The one bad thing about the lens is weight. My wide prime landscape lens kit weighs 3 kg (Samyang 14, Zeiss 21, Sigma 35 Art, AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 plus its adapter). Fine for hikes in the Ozarks, my home territory (well, St. Louis), with repetitive elevation changes of 100 to 300 feet, but if I ever got in shape for serious peak hiking in CO, I'd probably swap out the 14, 35, and 50 for a 40 f/2.8 STM and the Zeiss (or Scopar 20 f/3.5? I haven't seen this lens) and a pano kit for wide angle.


----------



## noisejammer (Jun 12, 2014)

OP - I have a Zeiss 21/2.8 - it's a fine lens but I strongly recommend you read this article before purchasing one. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm . People can say what they like about KR - in this case he nailed it.

If you're planning to use the lens for landscapes rather than enhanced perspective, I'd recommend a really good 35-80 mm + stitching rather than a wide lens. I've tried this with a variety of lenses and the Zeiss 50/2 seems to offer a good compromise of image detail, file size and usability. On this topic - If you go to a longer lens, don't loose sight of the problem that atmospheric haze can create with image resolution.



Random Orbits said:


> Keeping the TS-E 24 while having the TS-E 17 is mostly an economic decision. If you can afford keeping both, it's a great combination. The TS-E 24 can also tilt more than the 17. The TS-E 24 has better resolution than the 17 and the difference is even greater with a TC attached to the 17. I tend to use the 17 more indoor or for buildings and the 24 more outdoor. I also use the 24 more for stitching, just because the UWA shots tend to be more interesting with a stronger foreground element and I have more difficulty keeping the element strong with a 17 without distorting it too much when stitching.
> 
> I've mounted a 1.4x to the 17 just to see that it works, but I didn't like it all that much. Mostly because it interferes/or comes close to interfering when the rear element (near MFD, if I remember correctly).


I did a direct comparison of the TS-E 17 + 1.4x against the TS-E 24. I set both up at f/8 and focused using a live view and a loupe. My images demonstrated conclusively that the my 17+1.4x combination was equally sharp on axis and at least twice as good in the corners.

There is a difference however - I found that field curvature plays a significant role in determining which appears to be sharper. To get around this, I focused each lens in the region I was examining.

I didn't try to compare the images with the lenses tilted or shifted. Maybe I'll try this experiment sometime.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 12, 2014)

noisejammer said:


> I did a direct comparison of the TS-E 17 + 1.4x against the TS-E 24. I set both up at f/8 and focused using a live view and a loupe. My images demonstrated conclusively that the my 17+1.4x combination was equally sharp on axis and at least twice as good in the corners.


I haven't had my TS-E 17 & 24II long, but if you're talking about the original 24, that sounds right. From what I can tell of my copies, the 17 & 24II are equally as sharp, but the 24II takes the 1.4IIIx much better, and the 17+1.4xIII isn't as sharp as the 24II.


----------



## DRR (Jun 13, 2014)

I've been looking at picking up a used copy of the Tokina 17mm f/2.5 PRO. Seems to be a good buy at this FL ($200-300)

I have not been able to test one but at that price I'd be pretty comfortable buying to try.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=233


----------



## sdsr (Jun 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > As far as ultra wide angle lenses go there are only a hand full from any manufacturer that aren't terrible.
> ...



And the new EFS 10-18 should surely be on the list - reviews say it's better than the 10-22 and it's half the price (I'm happy with mine, anyway, for all that I prefer FF).


----------

