EF 20mm f1.8L VS. EF 14-24 f4L
- Thread starter Daniel Flather
- Start date
- Status
I would be able to afford neither, but the 20mm f/1.8 sounds a lot more interesting. A lens that wide, with an aperture that large would really put it in a league of its own (I'm not counting the Sigma 20mm f/1.8, since it's not usable at any aperture, let alone wide open). I think I'm probably in the minority in this survey, though, as most people are drooling over the 14-24mm Nikon, and want the wider angles it provides.
Upvote
0
Not sure we're drooling over the wider angle. Just the orders of magnitude better edge-to-edge performance than any Canon wide-angle zoom.
Upvote
0
A
AdamJ
Guest
KyleSTL said:
I'm right with you. A good 20mm f/1.8 would be a very attractive lens to me, even more so if a new one came from Sigma because of the milder sticker shock.
A 14-24mm f/4 wouldn't attract me away from my Sigma 12-24mm, while an f/2.8 would probably be a little too pricey for a hobbyist like me to justify, though I'm sure it would be a big seller.
Upvote
0
14-24 f/4 makes no sense whatsoever. 17-40 is perfectly fine for all intents and purposes. A 14-24 would have to be f/2.8 to pique my interest, but only if it had Godlike corner to corner sharpness. Even then, the featherweight 17-40 would probably be my choice, since any subject I'd be shooting wider than 24mm would be static and I'd have a tripod with me. UWA's distort people waaay too much for my taste, and in such an unflattering way. I'm seriously contemplating picking up an 8-15 fishy for UWA purposes instead of a 17-40 or 16-35.
Upvote
0
It'd be hard for me to buy the 14-24L right now, because I have the 16-35L II which works brilliantly (although not as well as the 24L at 24mm). I do like the idea of the 20 f/1.8L though. I like primes.
Upvote
0
We definitely need a fast lens that's wider than 24mm. A 20mm f/1.4 would be even better, though I don't like the idea of that being more than $2,000, which I suspect it would be.
Upvote
0
LostArk said:
It makes perfect sense for those who want a zoom lens from 14 to 24mm. If you don't like the 14-24 because of distortion of people, how is an 8-15 going to be better? Or do you mean you want one or the other?
Upvote
0
LostArk said:
Buying an 8-15mm fisheye in favor of less distortion over the 16-35 or 17-40 makes no sense whatsoever. And UWA's only distort people if you allow them to. Sure if you get a foot away from someone at 17mm they may be distorted, but if you're careful you can avoid it, it's all distance/positioning. If you don't like what a 17-40/16-35mm does in terms of distorting proportions then you're going to absolutely hate the 8-15mm.
Upvote
0
A 20mm f/1.8 would definitely be $2k, since the Sigma is $700 and its an optical joke through f/2.8. Generally you can double the 3rd party price, but, here I think it'd be even higher. Going to f/1.4 would be equally brutal price wise.Stephen Melvin said:
Upvote
0
LostArk said:
Axilrod said:
Actually, it makes perfect sense. He said "UWA's distort people way too much..." which is absolutely true. It is equally true that fisheye lenses do not distort people in that objectionable way that ultrawides do.
Upvote
0
Yes, if the 14-24 was f2.8 then that might attract a few more people to it. In UWAs a little zoom goes a long ways, 14mm to 24mm is huge, but at a cost of a few stops. I'd opt in for the 20/1.8 if it was on par with the amazing 24/1.4 Mrk 2.
Upvote
0
I have a 20mm 2.8, and it is an amazing lens. However, drop down a stop and give it L quality... That would be a killer lens.
I know it seems like it is way too close to the 24 prime, but when you start getting wide angle, each mm gives it a VERY different look.
I know it seems like it is way too close to the 24 prime, but when you start getting wide angle, each mm gives it a VERY different look.
Upvote
0
I would probably want to get an EF 14-24 f/2.8L if its image quality is an improvement over the EF 16-35 f/2.8 II. The latter is a little weak in IQ in the corners and at the long end.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
