Wide angle lens

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I have the Elan IIe and the 50mm 1.4 and I want something wider. I used to own the 28-105, but sold that recently to help pay for 70-200L. I would like something around the 20, 24 range. I really want a good lens in this range and I am considering the following: 20mm, 24mm, and 20-35 zoom. This lens will mostly be for landscapes and I do blow some of my pictures up to 11x14 and 16x20. I would like feedback from anyone who has used one or preferably more than one of these lenses... Is the zoom not worth looking at? Is 24mm wide enough? I have used the 24 and like it but have not had a chance to use the 20mm. I know this is one of those horrible "which lens" posts but I would like to hopefully find someone who has used these lenses and can give some info.....

-- Alex Corbishley (alexc@hooked.net), June 14, 1999

Answers

You sould rent the lenses you're interested in and give them a try. I owned the 20mm and 20-35 3.5-4.5 in the past. Returned the 20-35 after I shot a couple of rolls and sold the 20 for the convenience of the 17-35. The 20 is an excellent lens, I just liked the versatility of the 17-35. Image wise the 17-35 @ 20 is close to the 20 prime.

-- Dave Mitchell (mitchell@effectnet.com), June 14, 1999.

I think the stand-by answers of "rent it" and "go play with it at the store" are cop-outs. Many of us, I might even be daring and say the majority, don't live near shops that rent or cary many of these items in stock regularly.

Alex- How do you like the 70-200L? I am considering buying one to mate with my Elan IIE.

Sorry but I don't have any experience with lens you are asking about.

BV

-- Brian Vega (vega@micron.net), June 15, 1999.


The 70-200 takes pictures almost equal to the 50 1.4. They have great contrast and it is sharp as I will ever need. I want a three lens kit and this last lens will about cover it. The 70-200 is also versitile with the exension tube and the extenders. The price has also come down on this lens considerably, especially with the rebate. Maybe they are planning an IS version???

I am looking for exactly the kind of info as above. The camera shop close to me thinks the 20 and 24 are exotic lenses..... Why did you return the 20-35?

-- Alex Corbishley (alexc@hooked.net), June 15, 1999.


I have been using a 28 f2.8 with great results. I know that it isnt as wide as you are asking about, but they are SO cheap used, you might want one. Very light also. I have shot waterfalls with it on a monopod at f2.8 due to overcast and rain. I didnt have very high hopes for those slides, but they were STILL sharp under a loup, though not as sharp as stopped down. I had a 24 f2.8 for a while, and it was better then the 28. A VERY nice lens, sharp, and with great contrast. I picked it up cheap, and sold it soon after, as I was really after a 20 f2.8. I have just bought a 20-35 f2.8L, but havent shot with it yet. As a point of refence, I much prefer primes, and my only zoom was a 70-200 L, but we will see how the 20-35L does.

-- C Terry (yeti-man@webtv.net), June 15, 1999.

Alex, I found the 20-35's image quality to be under the 20mm and returned it. The 17-35 IMO is the best option, the range, constant 2.8 and USM are factors along with image quality. I wouldn't use it for buildings but for waterfalls it is outstanding. I have printed several slides up to 16x20 and are as happy with the results as I was with the 20mm. In reply to the "cop out" crack, do you buy everything you're told to or do you evaluate products to your own criterior? Personally I would prefer some input along with personal experience of the product. What suits me probably doesn't suit everyone else. But if you want a definitive answer for yourself I woud suggest the Sigma 28-200 and a Ultrapod, you should be able to obtain some excellent results.

-- Dave Mitchell (mitchell@effectnet.com), June 15, 1999.


I am not trying to make this a personal attack of anykind. Just trying to make a point

Dave, take a look at the way Alex answered my question and the way you answered the second time. Much more helpful and informative than go rent it.

About my "crack." All I am trying to do is point that many of us don't live in "big" cities. So, renting is really not a viable option. We have gather information order it and hope that if we have to return it, everything goes smoothly. The closest place that might have such lens is six hours away, that is a one way trip. Of course I (everyone) wants personal experience. SEE I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. But do fly to every place you vacation, first, just to get a feel for it? No you can because of time and resources. Same applies to folks like me I don't have many days I can drive 12 hours just to look at "toy."

BV

-- Brian Vega (vega@micron.net), June 15, 1999.


Thanks for all your responses. I finally found a store about 45 mi from my house that has both lenses. Went to the store. The 24 sure is a small lens compared to the 20mm! I think the 20mm is a little better due to the USM motor and manual/af and the extra wide mm. The price differential is not that much. As to the 28 mm - I had the 28-105 and it just was not wide enough to capture everything.

I really don't think that a 28-200 or 28-300 is really going to fit what I need/want - and that is a high quality three lens set. 28-300 might cover everything but the quality is not there. I wonder if anyone has ever tried blowing up a 28-300 picture shot wide open up to 16 by 20, no tripod of course :o Yikes. All kidding aside, thanks for the input.

-- Alex Corbishley (alexc@hooked.net), June 16, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ