|
tarzan420
Feb 14, 2006, 6:40 PM
Post #1 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
I'm looking at wide angle lenses for my second lens, esp. with climbing in mind. I've got the 28-90 that came with the camera (and will be replaced, eventuallly...), and I had been planning getting the Canon 24mm f/2.8 lens (can't afford the 1.4), but now realize that I can get the 20mm f/2.8 USM lens for a little more than $100 more.
So. Suggestions? Comments?
ps. this is a Rebel T2, no digi yet... :(
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Feb 14, 2006, 6:59 PM
Post #2 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Do you plan on going digital? How soon? What lens(es) would replace your zoom?
The 24 will be optically superior to the 20, not to mention much smaller and lighter. The 20 will give you a much more noticible difference in field of view.
Do you shoot mostly bouldering or routes? The 20 would be nice for bouldering shots. The 24 seems almost too close to your zoom to be worth it other than for the optical quality.
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Feb 14, 2006, 7:04 PM
Post #3 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
In reply to: Do you plan on going digital? How soon? What lens(es) would replace your zoom? The 24 will be optically superior to the 20, not to mention much smaller and lighter. The 20 will give you a much more noticible difference in field of view. Do you shoot mostly bouldering or routes? The 20 would be nice for bouldering shots. The 24 seems almost too close to your zoom to be worth it other than for the optical quality.
i was going to ask if you plan on going digital, too. Your 24 will be about a 38mm on a canon digital (unless you go high end).
have you had a chance to shoot some pictures with both lenses? test them out?
personally, i'd go wider. 20mm gives a great perspective. But if the optical quality is crud, then it won't matter too much.
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
ryanpfleger
Feb 14, 2006, 7:05 PM
Post #4 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2003
Posts: 243
|
save the money and get the 24-70/2.8... otherwise get the 20mm
also, don't listen to me, I have done very little climbing photography
|
|
|
|
|
marulianus
Feb 14, 2006, 7:33 PM
Post #5 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Posts: 49
|
I have 24-70mm f2.8 and that's very good allaround lens. If you need some extra wide lens then look 10-22 mm EF-S (did I say right
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Feb 14, 2006, 8:11 PM
Post #6 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: look 10-22 mm EF-S
ef-s would not fit to his camera, it is only for aps sized dslrs. And with canon spending more r&d on full-frame dslrs, I would not go for ef-s lenses, even if i plan to go digital soon.
24mm is not that wide, if the image quality is close, i would definetely get 20mm. 24 to 20 is not the same as 50 to 46, field of view (FOV) changes drastically at the wide end.
Here [link] is a FOV calculator, which gives this results
___f______Hor_____Vert_____Diag____ H/V
24.0__73.7398__53.1301__84.0622__1.3879
20.0__83.9744__61.9275__94.4932__1.3560
|
|
|
|
|
marulianus
Feb 14, 2006, 8:25 PM
Post #7 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Posts: 49
|
My error. Didn't think about normal camera and not digital :)
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Feb 14, 2006, 8:52 PM
Post #8 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Lens reviews...
20mm: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=28&sort=7&cat=2&page=1
24mm: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=21&sort=7&cat=2&page=1
|
|
|
|
|
pdx_climber
Feb 26, 2006, 9:01 PM
Post #9 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2005
Posts: 110
|
Always remember that a couple more milimeters on the wide end are much more noticable than a few more on the long end. The difference in FOV between the 20mm and the 24mm is very noticable.
In my opinion the 20mm is the better lens. You can always crop the shot in post-production if it's too wide.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Feb 27, 2006, 3:45 AM
Post #10 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how "rectilinear" is the 20 in comparison to the 24?
This may be of no consequence if you only use it for climbing shots. It could be a deal killer for the 20 if you use it for archetectural or other uses. Lenses wider than 24mm that don't exhibit a large amount of barrel distortion are are rare and usualy very expensive, (the Ziess Hologons).
|
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Mar 13, 2006, 6:55 AM
Post #11 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
I wouldnt bother with the 24mm, but thats just my personal photographic taste... i use a 20mm 2.8 a LOT for climbing stuff and it has a really nice wide perspective that the 24 doesnt quite get
as someone else said, borrow or hire the lenses for a few days and play around with them to see what suits you
edit: "You can always crop the shot in post-production if it's too wide. " - thats not true- you would frame your shot to suit whichever lens you're using, the difference is in the perspective of the subject.
another edit!: yeh because it digi you might want to go to about a 14mm? depending on what body you use.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 14, 2006, 3:45 AM
Post #12 of 12
(2685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Honestly, both.
the thing is people who don't use wide angles don't realize the difference between 17, 20, 24, 28mm. Each one of those is a totally different view point.
it's not like the difference between a 100mm and a 105mm.
look up the FOV for each lens and you'd be shocked. better look through each.
I have a cheapo 24mm that I use on my lightweight setup plus a 20mm 1.7 that is a beast. I often carry the 24 2.8 with me when i have the 20mm but not the other way around.
24 is nice for positioning foreground and background. such as a flower in front of a mountainscape. it gives a good balance, not too wide but wide.
this is harder with a 28mm. and with a 20mm the foreground is too small. of course these are just generalizations not every situation is the same.
i still don't like Wide zooms. unless you spend A LOT on a lens ($1500+) you won't get nearly the quality you can get from a 20, 24 combo and a 28-70 zoom.
anyway, if you get a 24mm you'll want a 20mm. and if you get a 20mm you'll want a 24mm.
also, if you go digi and don't get a full frame you can always get a APS sized lens in the 12-20mm range so don't get a 20mm just so you have a wide-normal 30mm on your DSLR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
