17-40mm L or 20mm f2.8

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

Im looking at these two canon lenses. Mainly for landscape work as I already have the cracking 24-105mm L which is a fantastic general purpose walkabout zoom. It's fine at 24mm for landscapes but I just feel at times I would like to go wider. But probably not as wide as 17mm. I used to have a 15-30mm sigma zoom and found the results from 15-20mm whackey... and never as good as I thought they would be in terms of composition.

So do I buy the 20mm... and simply stick with that... keeping it simple for landscapes by just having the prime and croping if required... whilst also having an extra £200 to get a manfrotto 055x or am I better spending the extra £200 and getting the 17-40mm and then a better tripod also... but not right away. I've got a velbon sherpa 600 just now which Im just not convinced is that stable!

How does the 17-40mmL compare with the 20mm f2.8prime optically? Is sigma worth considering... I've had sigma lenses in the past but always prefered the canon lenses.
 
I have recently bought a 17-40L and am overjoyed with it, on my crop camera the focal length is just what I require, but that's a personal thing. How it works is fact. mine never misses focus even on fast moving subjects. (my son riding trials) "I like to get a low viewpoint and up close and personal." and the controls are creamy.
Nice bit of kit.
 
I had the same kind of quandary when I was looking for a wide angle for landscapes. I really prefer primes and quite fancied the 20mm. But everything I read about it was "so so" really. It never (or very rarely) got glowing reports. In the end I bought the 17-40 which is one of the only two zooms I own, and I haven't been disappointed with it at all.

If you consider that for most landscapes you're likely to stop the lens down quite a bit for maximum DOF, then even though it's a zoom (says the prime fan :) ) it's usually going to be pretty good. And it is!

In this case go for the 17-40 I doubt that you'll regret it.

cheers
 
so that's three votes for the 17-40mm... but im still drawn to the prime and a new tripod... If anything a new tripod is the one thing I need to achieve beter results than anything else... I guess a bit of me just thinks I should be using primes to get the best results as thats how its always been... but its only now in my photography i have the confidence to feel that a prime wont limit my creativity...

I'll need to look at the test results... but does anyone have the 20mm prime... whats your thoughts on it? Are you thinking of changing it?

I think i'll be fine with the 20mm... I looked at my pics id taken with the sigma I had and I often used 20mm but when I got less than that the results where to extreme!

Or in this digital age is 24mm enough and I need to have a go at doing some photo stitching using the free canon software for panoramas... something i've never tried... however I do know my 24-105mm is only ok at 24mm... but at 35mm it's fantastic...mind you that's only what i've read as never really had an issue so far myself!
 
Actually a decent tripod would make all the difference in the world! Way more difference than between these two lenses!
 
Bill Roberts said:
Actually a decent tripod would make all the difference in the world! Way more difference than between these two lenses!
Click to expand...

Preaching to the converted there mate.... really interested in hearing from a canon 20mm owner on his or her thoughts on the lens???

Also what do people think of Sigma/ Tamron etc alternatives to the prime... any thoughts on them?
 
finally had a chance to read a few reviews... and I think i've answered my own question... better with the 17-40mm...

I just find it so surprising that zooms now apear to be better than a prime!

M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top