 |
|
|
MARTHIN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2005
Location: Brazil
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very nice. God build. Fsat focus
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Fantast lenses
|
|
 Jun 10, 2005
|
|
JORDI 300D
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 6, 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp after f4. Very good building. Very quick AF. Not too big.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft at f.2.8 . Not sun protector included. Better potographies with PS.
|
|
|
(First; excuse me for my english but i am from Spain it is not my language).
For me it is not a bad lens. Compared wit 17-85 USM IS at 20 mm this is much better in all cases. The same compared with Sigma 12-24 at 20 mm also.
I use this lense for a special moments that i need more precison that give me the other mentioned lenses, or with low ligth.
|
|
|
May 6, 2005
|
|
gerrit p
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
USM, very low distortion, can be used for architecture.
|
|
Cons:
|
the contast is not so high, but that can be corrected in PS
|
|
|
On the 10D this one becomes a semiwideangle, very good for everyday use. Because the AF of my 10D is not so precise I close the apertue at least at f4 to compensate for the little misfocussing. But not a big problem for me. Sharpness and contrast are at the low side but the lens gives very usable results. I could not find much differance in quality with the 17-40. As the 20mm fits better in weight and size in combination withe 10D; I prefer the 20mm instead of the 17-40.
In combination with the 1Ds the 20mm works great. Contrast and sharpness are almost equal with the 17-40. Big Pro is that the barrel distortion is less than with 17-40. At fullframe there is vignetting, but this is can be removed with a plug-in in PS.
When in need for a real wideangle this one is my favourite on full-frame.
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2005
|
|
fp-foto.com
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 365
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $175.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8, build quality is excellent, optical very good, great manual focussing ring
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit big(I like it but I have big hands)
|
|
|
Was really lucky to find this lens for a real bottum price. I've been using it for around a year on my Eos 5/A2 and 300v, great perspective and very sharp.
Just bought a 20D, like the results in combination with this lens. Oke, with 32mm the perspective isn't quite that impressive but for allround photojournalism it's a great lens.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2005
|
|
coreypolis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1754
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good coloring, close min focusing distance
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as expected
|
|
|
Not real wide on a 1.6x, but a nice leight weight lens to add if you don't do a lot of wide angle shots
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2005
|
|
novacaine
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focusing, USM. Of course what lens at this focal length doesn't focus quickly?
|
|
Cons:
|
Very soft, average contrast, color rendition a little on the cool side. Not worth the price. Worth the price at half what this beast sells for.
|
|
|
I'm a little disappointed with this lens. Not at all up to the standard of other Canon EF lenses I have had in the past, including some really inexpensive consumer level zooms. I would feel guilty selling this to someone at any price.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2004
|
|
Toys6
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 17, 2003
Location: Austria
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 4, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
colors
|
|
Cons:
|
sharpness, vignetting
|
|
|
Sorry, but this lens is not worth the money. Sharpness and vignetting are very poor. Bad in barrel distortion for a prime.
AF speed is okay, colors are good.
The Sigma 20/1,8 is much sharper at f/2,8 than this lens at f/8.
I can not recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Aug 4, 2004
|
|
MarkSaperstein
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1337
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
A decent wide angle lens if you can keep it at f/8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor optics wide open.
|
|
|
If you don't need f/2.8 at this focal length, save your money for a 17-40 f/4.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2004
|
|
Reynard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 215
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small & light compared to other prime / zoom offerings at this focal length, sharp & good colour rendition
|
|
Cons:
|
Prone to flare if not careful and the hood is a bit of a joke...
|
|
|
Did some serious research before buying this lens a fortnight ago - was worried a little by the mixed reviews, but on using it extensively last week feel that I've made the right choice.
The lens perfomed excellently on my D60 in all sorts of conditions (indoor with flash, outdoors in bright sunlight & overcast) and proved to be razor sharp throughout the aperture range, with the exception of wide open at f2.8 where it is slightly soft, but still useable. Colour rendition is excellent, which is important as I do a lot of work with racing cars, and focusing is fast too.
All in all, the 20mm prime makes a great photojournalist's tool in pit & paddock situations and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is looking to buy an unltra-wide prime.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2004
|
|
solecist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 20
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2004
|
|
mskad
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 20, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 115
|
|
Review Date: Nov 24, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Construction / All the benefits of having Ring USM / (Relative) sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Not wide enough with 1.6 crop factor / Big lens
|
|
|
I like almost everything in this lens: sharp from center to corners, fast and silent AF with full time MF, color rendition, no visible CA or distortion (at least with my Canon EOS 10D).
Construction wise, this lens is really well done. MF ring is large enough and well damped.
Only complain is the field of view with a 10D/D30/D60/Rebel: 32mm equivalent. Also, the lens is quite big.
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2003
|
|
imager1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 284
|
|
Review Date: Oct 2, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, very sharp, good contrast, affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I owned one of these about five years ago. It served me well then. I sold it when I traded up for some more expensive gear. I recently purchased another one used.This is a very nice lens. It's sharp and has great contrast. I don't know what lens the other reviewers were using, but it's obviously not the same as the ones I've owned, IMHO.
|
|
|
Oct 2, 2003
|
|
molson
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Oct 29, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8915
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent build quality, USM
|
|
Cons:
|
Too big, too heavy, too expensive (C$850!), poor optical performance.
|
|
|
This is one of the biggest disappointments in the Canon EF lens lineup. It suffers from major image degradation toward the edges of the frame at all apertures (although this may be less noticeable on digital cameras with a 1.6x crop factor). Center sharpness is good, but not great. Given the size and cost of this lens, I thought Canon could have produced better results.
If you need a wide angle, stick with Canon's zoom lenses; even the 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 is a better performer than this one.
Update:
I tried another sample of this lens, and found it worse than the first one I owned. Even stopped down to f/11 or f/16, this lens could not resolve even a moderate amount of detail outside the central portion of the frame - everything was just mush (and that's with a sturdy tripod and mirror lockup). I suspect this performance might be acceptable on a low-resolution digital camera with 1.6x cropped FOV, but this lens is simply horrible on a full-frame film camera. I traded this one in on the brilliant EF 17-40mm f4L.
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2003
|
|
MAC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1000
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
great color, contrast, hardly any barrel and sharp for this mm!
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/gallery/albuo73
|
|
Cons:
|
A little prone to flare.. no other lens below 20 currently appeals to me except the 17 -40 f4L, but the 20 beats zooms in this range, particularly for barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2003
|
|
rebel300
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 13833
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good detail
|
|
Cons:
|
none I found
|
|
|
Most of you know I really dislike wides (Too much work, I'm lazy)...but this is a very inexpensive suprise on my 10-D. Only use a wide once in a while so the price was right for my use...the detail is pretty decent..no complaints.
LM
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2003
|
|
junbug
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
35(32)mm equivalent with 10D (1.6 multiplier) so, easy to frame. price. nice bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
big (fat). slightly blurred at perimeter (even with clopped image of 10D)
|
|
|
This is my first Canon lens. I purchased it with 10D, because I thought it'll be smooth transition from compact digital. Barrel distortion is more than I expected (my field is architectural and interior photography, so I'm severe on this). Not so impressed with the contrast, but does the job as much as the price. Bokeh is good with close-up. Would be suitable for daily snapshots.
|
|
|
May 28, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
53
|
187925
|
May 30, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
85% of reviewers
|
$358.76
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.38
|
8.06
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
