I am just getting into photography. I just baught an EOS Elan 2 e camera with a 28-200mm lense.

However for my wide angle lense I am confused to what is out there. Tell me if I am rong but with the info out there a 20mm lense is a wide as one would want to go with out distortion, vinyeting and other problems like the fisheye or christmas tree effect I do not want. IS that true?

I guess I am looking for the do all wide angle with excellent sharpeness with out having to pay 2,000 or up for the 20-35 "L" series. Is the 20mm "L" series lense what I am looking for or is the 20 mm still going to give me some christmas tree bulb distortion. I will be using the lense for both indoors and outdoors and cant afford to buy to many lenses. I fear the 17-35mm ef series lense wont have the sharpness I am looking for yet cant afford it in the "L" series so I am opting for the one 20mm"L" lense. Any advise would be appreciated.

Yes I realize the 17-35 or the 19-35mm would have more variable in its use but the "L" series for sharpness would be too expensive. I also cant find on the Canon web site any info on the "L" series lenses, just the ef series. Thanks Ciao John

-- John Owens (jowens01@tampabay.rr.com), July 25, 2000

Answers

The fixed focal 20mm/2.8 is a fine lens. The zooms with 20mm in their range will be fine, as well. There is not a L series in a fixed 20mm, but that is not a worry as the normal lens is a fine performer.

If you want something in this range, which is the real question, you'll have a fine lens. I have had no noticable problems you mention with the 20mm/2.8. The major problem is that the angle of converage is so great that it takes a bit more thinking to compose a scene right.

-- Chris Gillis (chris@photogenica.net), July 25, 2000.

You're not going to get any fisheye distortion with the 24, or the 20 or even the 14mm. That isn't to say you wont get an odd view with any of them. The wider the lens, the stranger it usually seems, but that isn't really the result of distortion the way a fisheye does it.

You really ought to try them out though. It used to be that most photographers had little use for anything wider than a 24, but we have seen so many magazine and news photos with wide lenses that we have gotten used to them. So, more people are using them and some photographers can't see enough with a 14, and are waiting for the new Voitlander 12.5mm.

The older 20-35L is less than the current 17-35L and the 20-35EF is less yet and it has a reputation for being quite sharp. A lot sharper than your 20-200, and it's often found for less than the 20mm. For even less you could get a Vivitar/Pheonix/Cosina 19-35, and it would still be sharper than your 28-200. Whatever brand it is.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), July 25, 2000.

have to agree with jim above. lucky for me, i have access to a 17-35 2.8L. it's a great, i mean GREAT, lens. i've also used the 20-35 ef which i'm also very impressed with. i will probably be getting this lens in the near future since i can't really afford my own 17-35L. at least for me, when shooting wide angle stuff, i usually stop the lens down for greater depth of field, and most lenses do fine around f8- f11. like jim said anything that's out there will be sharper than your 28-200 zoom. for more info check www.photo.net... also in that web site, bob atkins wrote a pretty good review of some canon wide angles. hope this helps...

-- howard shen (hshen@lsm.org), July 26, 2000.

Another nice feature of the 17-35 is that the filter size, 77mm, is a similar size of many of the L series lenses. However, the 72mm filter size of the twenty, is somewhat common to EOS lense as well as other formats.

-- Chris Gillis (chris@photogenica.net), July 26, 2000.