Canon 20mm 2.8 lens

[gregjohnston]

I recently upgraded to the 1DS MKIII and find my 16-35 is not quite sharp at the edges. Rather than upgrade to the II series lens, was thinking of purchasing new primes. The first being the 20mm lens. Anyone using this combination with great results.

[Lightbox]

It ain't a bad lens, I have owned it for the last 4 years, but recently upgraded to the 24mm f1.4L, preferring a slightly less wide fov to work with. I would expect similar results to the 16-35 you already have.

[JonRoemer]

I recently upgraded to the 1DS MKIII and find my 16-35 is not quite sharp at the edges. Rather than upgrade to the II series lens, was thinking of purchasing new primes. The first being the 20mm lens. Anyone using this combination with great results.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I haven't shot the 20/2.8 (image quality samples I found online and lens reviews did not impress me) but I've found that the 16-35 II lens on the 1DsM3 is very good from 20mm and longer.

[a href=\"http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2008/07/the-search-for-the-holy-grail-wide-angle-lenses-for-the-canon-eos-1ds-mark-iii/]My Blog Entry on Wide Angle Lenses for the Canon 1DsM3[/url]

I'd love it if Canon came out with a new prime "L" lens in the 18-21mm range with the same quality as their new 14mm II lens.

Jon Roemer
--
http://www.jonroemer.com/

[DarkPenguin]

I thought that lens was crap on an APS-C sensor.   Can't imagine it being any better on a 1DsMkIII.

[BobDavid]

I used to have the 20mm f/2.8 Canon lens. I sold it when I got the 17-40 f/4 L. At 20mm, not only is the 17-40 as sharp as the 20mm prime, it also exhibits less CA than the 20 f/2.8.

[Josef Isayo]

I used to have the 20mm f/2.8 Canon lens. I sold it when I got the 17-40 f/4 L. At 20mm, not only is the 17-40 as sharp as the 20mm prime, it also exhibits less CA than the 20 f/2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wouldn't recommend it!
My old 16-35L MKI was significantly sharper wide open, with a lot less vignetteing, and had much better corners than the 20 f/2.8. It's really a mediocre lens.

[CJL]

I think you'll find that *any* of Canon's wide-angle zooms are better performers than the EF 20mm f2.8.  I tried 9 or 10 different copies, and the results ranged from mediocre to downright terrible.

[TMARK]

I shoot people and find its great.  Way better than the 24-70L at 24.  Surprisingly low levels of barrel distortion.  Good contrast and color.

Edited to add:  I shot it on a 1ds2 and 5D.

[JonRoemer]

Edited to add:  I shot it on a 1ds2 and 5D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With Canon I've shot with the 1Ds, 1DsM2 and now the 1DsM3.  The change from the 1DsM2 to the 1DsM3 while not a huge leap in pixels is a noticeable leap in how well the wide angle lenses perform.  So, experience on the earlier bodies may have no bearing on the newest body.

My 16-35 v1 lens was fine on the earlier two models but unacceptable on the 1DsM3.  On the 1DsM3 the corners look smeared the wider you go.  Stopping down and zooming in never fully clears it up.  The 24-70, too, while passable at 24 on the early models (as more of a press coverage grab and go lens) looks pretty poor on the 1DsM3 at 24.

The 24 TSE lens and the 24/1.4 hold up quite well on the 1DsM3.  The 24 TSE better than I expected.  It was never the sharpest lens in the world to begin with but the 1DsM3 has not made it worse.

[Brad Proctor]

I shoot people and find its great. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yikes!