Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Wide-Angle Prime Lens

Description

If there is one thing in this universe that is more rare than gold, it is a positive review of this particular lens. Now I don't know if I just got lucky and got a good sample. But this lens works great for me. Sharpness is actually REALLY good. Now one of the BIG complaints of this lens is poor edge sharpness. But I have not found this to be a severe problem - especially when stopped down somewhat. And, since a lens of this focal length is more likely to be used for scenics or arcitectural use than action shots, this isn't the end of the world.

On a 1.6x crop camera, the equivalent focal length of this 20mm f/2.8 lens is 32mm. This is a wonderful focal length for landscape photography and general purpose use, and the f2.8 is acceptably fast for interior available light situations.

On a full-frame camera, the lens is amazingly wide-angle, and can be challenging to frame an interesting picture. on the other hand, when you need the lens to be that wide, it's wonderful to have. The shortcomings to this lens is that it loses sharpness toward the edges, which is more evident on full-frame cameras as the APS-C 1.6 crop cameras pluck just the center out of this lens.

This lack of edge sharpness is not always a big deal, as the edges of a photo are usually not the focal point.

When I want a wide lens, I usually grab my 20mm prime lens over my 17-40mm zoom lens. Whether for portraits of my friends or architecture shots this lens is excellent. It's relatively small size also meant it fits in a small camera holder, perfect as a travel lens!

This ultra-wide-angle lens is for serious applications. it's easy to hold and carry at only 14.3 oz. (405g). It features a floating rear focusing system. The Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Lens fits in a beneficial wide angle focal length space below the ultra-common 24-something and 28-something zoom lenses. There is a noticeable FOV (field of view) difference between 20mm and 24/28mm.

It is coated with a black semi-gloss finish that resists wear and tear. It's built with a metal lens mount and plastic filter thread. It's small but stout, about as wide in diameter as it is long (2.8 in. x 3.1 in.). ...

• 72mm Snap-On Lens Cap
• Lens Dust Cap E (Rear)
• 1-Year Warranty

bad lens, August 11, 2009

By Otto Haring (Miami)

I used it to shoot from an elevated angle. The result were disappointing.....I paid $[...] but I don't think it is even worth more than $[...] to tell you the truth. The colors are lifeless, "burnt-out". There are no details on the images. You can see the samples on my site: [...] Look for the huge house with the red roof. You will see what I am talking about. Normally, I use the 17-40 L on my elevated system. I thoguht the 20mm would be a good replacement even if it not as good as the 17 40. I think even the 18-55 Canon kit lens produces better images. Add a few hundred bucks and buy a decent lens.

By Neurasthenic "neurasthenic" (New York City, New York)

This is one of the first two lenses I bought when I switched to a Canon SLR about five years ago. I've had plenty of opportunity to use it since then, both with film and (full frame) digital.

The idea behind this lens is a good one -- 20mm is wide enough to allow for landscape and architectural photos, and it focuses close enough for entertaining photos of people's faces, taken about a foot away from their noses (note that you'll need either a ring light or lucky ambient light to pull off the latter). There is some pincushion distortion, but nobody would accuse the results of looking like a funhouse mirror, as would be the case with a fisheye lens, for example.

f2.8 is fast enough; I've no complaints there. Unfortunately, this camera consistently vignettes -- the corners of every image are dim. This is true even with a bare lens, and filters make it worse. You can correct the problem in image editing software, or just crop the image, but what's the point of buying a 20mm lens if you're going to have to crop every photo you take with it?

If this had been a cheap zoom lens, I'd have expected the problem and not been bothered by it. With a fixed lens, however, I think there isn't much excuse.

Canon still charges about the same ($400) that I paid for this lens years ago. By now, they ought to have upgraded this thing, or dropped the price. It is the worst EF lens I own.

-- addendum: I've recently been using a Canon EOS IX, which takes APS film. This lens is much more useful with that camera, though using even APS-H, you get something akin to the image you would get from a 35mm lens on a 35mm negative.