# EF 20 mm f.2,8



## Heidrun (Jun 19, 2011)

Any chanses that this lens wil be replaced or maybe there is a wider one coming to the marked. Not thinking about an L lens. But something affordeble in the wide lens marked


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 19, 2011)

It dates to 1992, and many zooms out perform it. Its not wide enough for crop cameras, and the 17-40mm f/4 L can be had for a little more as long as you do not need f/2.8. 

If you have a crop camera, consider the 17-55mm f/2.8.

Only those needing a low cost 20mm at f/2.8 on a FF Camera might want it. I think that one day, it will just quietly disappear, Canon seems to be ignoring the non L primes.


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jun 19, 2011)

Using Photozone to compare various primes (e.g. 135mm f/2 L and 85mm f/1.2 L II, I own neither) to the 70-200mm f/2.8 II makes me wonder whether technology allows zooms to perform as well as primes in comparable aperatures (and, at least in this context, I'm not dismissing the value of the extra stops those primes have), or whether Canon can improve primes even beyond the 70-200mm f/2.8 II.

The main reason I'm keeping the 85mm f/1.8 is not it's optical performance, which satisfies me, but because the size difference makes a big difference in people's reaction to the lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 19, 2011)

personally i wouldn't bother in any f2.8 prime (except >200mm), you can get just as good images from recently-released zooms these days. (compare the photozone.de reviews of the 70-300L and the 300 f4L, they even say the prime isn't any better than the zoom (except for the wider aperture)).

there's only one reason i think anyone would consider it nowadays, and that's size+weight (or maybe cost).

I'm definitely hopeful that one day the wide-prime-nonL lenses will get an upgrade, but i'm not holding my breath.

Canon have this mentality of "if you can afford a 5d2 or 1ds3, you can afford a 17-40L or 16-35L or a 24/35 f1.4L, and if you can only afford an aps-c then you'll only want the 17-55 f2.8 and if you want a faster prime then you won't be able to see how crap our 20-year old lenses are on your low-quality aps-c sensor because if you cared about quality you'd buy a 5d2 with a Xmm 1.4L"

rubbish, and i'm still hopeful that since the release of the 7D canon might realise that even professionals care about image quality and are using aps-c. we still don't even have a 'normal' length affordable decent quality fast prime
- 35f2 is a bit squishy at f2, not worth the savings from 17-55 f2.8 for the extra speed.
- sigma 30 f1.4 is very soft on the borders.
- 35 1.4L is just too expensive (and huge).
- personally i'm scouring ebay for old manual focus primes in this range, they still beat the 35f2.

so back to original point: i see very very little chance of this ever being updated, f2.8 primes just won't sell well, unless it has the quality of an L in the same size/weight/cost bracket. If anything we might get a 28 f1.8 replacement, (i'd be happy with efs 28f2), or maybe a 35f2 replacement (efs 35 f1.4-1.8 would be better)


----------



## AJ (Jun 19, 2011)

I used to own this lens. At the time I chose it over the 17-40/4 because I thought I was smart to get an extra stop of light and spend less money. In hindsight it was a bad decision, I should've gotten the 17-40/4.

It's a mediocre lens. Color and microcontrast are great. It's exceedingly sharp in the center from f/4 onwards. c/a is low. Has ring-USM focus. Bomber build quality. BUT: the corners take a while to sharpen up (f/8) and even then they're not impressive. Vignetting is high even at f/11. It's the worst flaring lens I've ever owned (major weakness for an ultrawide). Bokeh is downright ugly (no big deal).

As mentioned, don't bother with this lens if you're shooting crop. The cheaper Tamron 17-50/2.8 blows it away in terms of sharpness, plus it zooms. 20/2.8 was way more fun with film. Even then I should've gotten the 17-40 because 17 mm is more fun than 20 mm.

Maybe they'll update the 17-40/4 someday? Hopefully not, because that'll probably entail a price increase.


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jun 20, 2011)

AJ said:


> Maybe they'll update the 17-40/4 someday? Hopefully not, because that'll probably entail a price increase.



To my understanding the high prices are due to two reasons: temporary weakness of the U.S.$ & the Euro, and initial high prices of upgraded lenses (= mkN, N>2, lenses) intended to temporarily protect shops with stock and photographers who want to upgrade their lenses.

In my humble prediction (and as prophecy was given to the fools and the madmen, I'm a fool either way), prices will drop within a few years, and I would rather have the new & upgraded lenses in the market by then.


----------



## keg (Jun 23, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with the 20/2.8:


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 5, 2011)

keg said:


> There is nothing wrong with the 20/2.8:




Love it.


----------



## irphotorumor (Jul 6, 2011)

Ah, couldn't keep my keyboard shut !

1.6x, 20mm @f/2.8

I have one non-macro, full-frame bokeh here:
http://irbque.blogspot.com/2010/12/two-perspectives-from-single-trail.html

I don't recall the exact f-stop but I had intended to keep it open. Note how much I like lens' other faults !
Cheers!
Ivan


----------

