Question:
If I had to pick a zoom from the list, I’d opt for the 20~35 because the zoom range would be more useful to me than the range of the other zooms on your list-I’m a big fan of wide angles. I think you need to do some self discussion and decide what kind of photographs you want to make with your next lens. If you don’t you’ll just buy something because someone else suggested it was the right thing to do. That could be the single worst reason to make a purchase. Fred Maplewood Photography
Very good points. Deciding on goals and intentions is very important. But all in all, a 20-35 mm zoom is a very versatile lens range, and it covers all the important wide angles in one go. Zooms are certainly good for one thing – they build experience about focal length preferences fast, and IMHO, that is one reason why a kit zoom may not be completely wasted. — Anders Svensson
Response:
I got 24mm to complement my 50mm prime (I’m a Nikon shooter). Never regretted it. If you were Nikon shooter I’d suggest new 18-35/3.5-4.5 Nikkor. I’m not sure what Canon has in their wide-angle department but you might also want to look at 20-35/2.8L and the like. Going ultra-wide you might consider 17/3.5 Tokina. Alexander – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A brief recap: About 6 months ago, I asked whether I needed to kiss 35mm goodbye in order to get good picture quality (i.e., sharpness like in magazines and books.) Following the good advice given here, I purchased a strong tripod and the Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. I also switched from Fuji SuperHQ 200 to Fuji Realla 100 film. The results have been – well – stunning. I’ve been very pleased with the resulting sharpness. I just finished a vacation trip where I only took my 50mm lens (and a monopod because the tripod/head combo was too big to carry through airports.) I also photographed a family gathering with it. For family gatherings, the lens works perfectly – I get the results I want and expect. For travel, though, it became very obvious that the vast majority of my pictures need a wider angle than I can get with the 50mm (moving backwards is usually not an option due to elements encroaching on the image like gates, towers, power lines, etc.) My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000) I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price. I had a 35-80mm cheap-o Canon lens and had problems at the wide end with distortion (looked like the world curved.) I also thought that 35mm was a tad too narrow a view in many situations. I’ve read the reviews on PhotographyReview.com, done the research, etc. etc. I’m just hoping to benefit from the fine advice available here. Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Scott E. Regener
Response:
My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000)
I have the 28-70 and love it, even if it is a trifle heavy. You should be able to pick up a secondhand one in good condition for around 400.
Response:
If all you need is a wider angle, then go with the 24mm f/2.8. This lens is as good as the 28-70 2.8L is at 28mm and far cheaper. The 28mm 2.8 is also just as good and even cheaper.
The 24mm must be truly a *miracle* of optical design if its performance at f=28mm is as good as that of an L lens. <g — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
This lens is just as sharp as the 28-70L at the 28mm setting, and I bet you anything it has less distortion (the 28mm f/2.8 has virtually no distortion to begin with). I thought so, especially when the 28-70L is reviewed as being "as sharp as primes." The only question was, did they mean "as sharp as an L- prime" or just "as sharp as an EF prime"? I would expect no distortion problems from a prime lens, as it was designed specifically for that focal length – only zooms should have distortion issues, IMO.
It’s a common assumption that zooms cannot approach the optical standards of fixed focal length lenses. In theory this is absolutely correct, but in practice it is not necessarily so. I’ll use the Nikkor range as an example because it’s the one I’m most familiar with; the general principles may also apply to other ranges. Many of the fixed focal length lenses on offer today were designed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. They may have been converted to AF operation but the optics are still much the same. When these lenses were designed, optics was as much of an art as a science and basic designs had been around for many years. Designing a new lens was extremely labour intensive (= expensive) and there was not much opportunity for innovation as trial and error (essential for investigating alternative approaches) was also expensive. When zoom lenses started to become popular, computer aided design (CAD) was becoming available, and this allowed a far greater number of optical calculations to be carried out and new options explored. Aspherical lenses and low dispersion glass would not have been adopted on such a large scale as they have (and as quickly) without the impetus created by the demand for the convenience of zoom lenses. As zooms were in such great demand the fixed focal length designs were left alone. They were considered largely "good enough" and their market share was in steady decline as zooms steadily took over. With investment in R&D going more and more to development of zoom lens designs, it became possible to develop zoom lenses that approached and even (in some cases) equalled the performance of the still very good, but no longer world class, fixed focal length lenses. The performance of these lenses, exemplified in the Nikon range by 35-70mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF Nikkors, was for the first time comparable with the best fixed focal length lenses in the Nikon range. Some argue that the earlier 28-85mm f/3.3-4.5 AIS Nikkor and the 75-50mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E (the stuff of legend!) were among the first steps along this road, and there is some justification to that argument. There is also some justification to the argument that the latest AF-S Nikkors (17-35mm. 28-70mm and 80-200mm) may actually surpass the performance of some of the better fixed focal length lenses in the Nikkor range. Contrast this with the Zeiss lenses for Contax SLRs, which are recognised as some of the best lenses available for 35mm SLR cameras. The basic Zeiss designs may be old, but they have been refined and improved incrementally over the years they have been used by Rollei and Contax. There’s been no resting on laurels here; every Zeiss fixed focal length lens shows an improvement over its 1970s and 80s predecessors, and on average the Zeiss lenses are optically better performers (in terms of sharpness and contrast) than their Nikkor counterparts. The Zeiss zooms are, however, slightly less impressive. Whereas the best Nikkor zooms are comparable with Nikkor fixed focal length lenses, the Zeiss zooms are probably not in the same class as the Zeiss fixed focal length lenses. I believe this shows the difference between the Zeiss R&D spend and Nikon’s; in my opinion Nikon’s spending priorities have been their zooms, whereas Zeiss have spent more equally in the two areas. I’m expressing an opinion here; it can only be based on my own knowledge plus what I’ve read as I don’t have personal experience of ever Nikkor or Zeiss lens for Contax. But I’m confident that the overall direction of what I’ve said above is sound. What it shows is that, with a large R&D spend, it is possible to innovate design and materials to produce zoom lenses of higher quality than very good fixed focal length lenses, as with Nikon. But when fixed focal length lenses are also developed to a high standard, it is the case that zoom designers find it difficult to match the best fixed focal length lenses, as with Zeiss. So it remains the case that, in theory, most zooms cannot approach the optical standards of the best fixed focal length lenses, but that in practice, the best zoom designs can achieve results that bear comparison with very good fixed focal length lenses. — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
I just ordered the Sigma 17-35mm. From what Ive read, its a good lens. I’ll let you know.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A brief recap: About 6 months ago, I asked whether I needed to kiss 35mm goodbye in order to get good picture quality (i.e., sharpness like in magazines and books.) Following the good advice given here, I purchased a strong tripod and the Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. I also switched from Fuji SuperHQ 200 to Fuji Realla 100 film. The results have been – well – stunning. I’ve been very pleased with the resulting sharpness. I just finished a vacation trip where I only took my 50mm lens (and a monopod because the tripod/head combo was too big to carry through airports.) I also photographed a family gathering with it. For family gatherings, the lens works perfectly – I get the results I want and expect. For travel, though, it became very obvious that the vast majority of my pictures need a wider angle than I can get with the 50mm (moving backwards is usually not an option due to elements encroaching on the image like gates, towers, power lines, etc.) My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000) I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price. I had a 35-80mm cheap-o Canon lens and had problems at the wide end with distortion (looked like the world curved.) I also thought that 35mm was a tad too narrow a view in many situations. I’ve read the reviews on PhotographyReview.com, done the research, etc. etc. I’m just hoping to benefit from the fine advice available here. Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Scott E. Regener
Response:
If you have a chance, go to a book store and take a look at John Shaw’s Nature and Landscape books, and you can see what he does with a 24mm prime. I’d say 40% of the photos in the Landscape book were shot with the 24mm lens. Perhaps that will help inform your decision.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This lens is just as sharp as the 28-70L at the 28mm setting, and I bet you anything it has less distortion (the 28mm f/2.8 has virtually no distortion to begin with). I thought so, especially when the 28-70L is reviewed as being "as sharp as primes." The only question was, did they mean "as sharp as an L- prime" or just "as sharp as an EF prime"? I would expect no distortion problems from a prime lens, as it was designed specifically for that focal length – only zooms should have distortion issues, IMO. If you want to go a bit wider and can spend a little more money, go with the 24mm. I think the 24mm is a bit more serious of a wide-angle lens. Yes, and others have suggested the 24 as well. Given my propensity for skylines, I’m afraid the 24 might be a little too extreme in the "wide- angle effect" – making objects on the edges seem dramatically smaller than those in the middle. I can personally attest to the 28mm f/2.8 being optically a real winner. Most others also really love the 24mm f/2.8. This is encouraging news from someone who ought to know – you’ve seen what the 50mm is capable of and find the 28mm to be comparable. — Scott E. Regener
Response:
Figbert said: I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price.
If all you need is a wider angle, then go with the 24mm f/2.8. This lens is as good as the 28-70 2.8L is at 28mm and far cheaper. The 28mm 2.8 is also just as good and even cheaper. — Jerry Gardner | Bill Clinton has all the steely resolve of
Response:
If I shoot with a 50mm lens, and have to aim up or down, instead of leveling the camera toward the center, I make sure the predominant line is perfectly verical or horizontal. Usually, my main line is about 2/3 off center. Most people never notice the edges are even worse. You can get away with that a little wider than 50mm. With a 24 it’ll just look stupid. Standing closer won’t do it; where you stand IS perspective. It seems to me that any body who takes decent picturs with a 24 is an incredibly careful worker. Bob Hickey
Response:
True, perspective will change, but moving forward with a wide-angle lens would, in addition to changing perspective, omit elements, not add them (which was the original problem stated in the origin of this thread). It’s either that or get a zoom lens (which is exactly what I did) or purchase both the 24 and the 28, not to mention a 35. Not being familiar with the greater body of Canon lenses, nor Figbert’s financial situation, I can’t say whether the zoom lens would be an option or not. Certainly purchasing all three primes in addition to the 50mm he’s already packing is not an option he is considering. Therefore I stand by my original conclusion: get the 24mm and move closer if need be.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not so. Changing position relative to the subject changes perspective as well as framing. Changing focal length changes only framing. Good shooting. — Fred Maplewood Photography You want the 24mm. If it’s too wide, you can always get closer.
Response:
This lens is just as sharp as the 28-70L at the 28mm setting, and I bet you anything it has less distortion (the 28mm f/2.8 has virtually no distortion to begin with).
I thought so, especially when the 28-70L is reviewed as being "as sharp as primes." The only question was, did they mean "as sharp as an L- prime" or just "as sharp as an EF prime"? I would expect no distortion problems from a prime lens, as it was designed specifically for that focal length – only zooms should have distortion issues, IMO. If you want to go a bit wider and can spend a little more money, go with the 24mm. I think the 24mm is a bit more serious of a wide-angle lens.
Yes, and others have suggested the 24 as well. Given my propensity for skylines, I’m afraid the 24 might be a little too extreme in the "wide- angle effect" – making objects on the edges seem dramatically smaller than those in the middle. I can personally attest to the 28mm f/2.8 being optically a real winner. Most others also really love the 24mm f/2.8.
This is encouraging news from someone who ought to know – you’ve seen what the 50mm is capable of and find the 28mm to be comparable. — Scott E. Regener
Response:
Not so. Changing position relative to the subject changes perspective as well as framing. Changing focal length changes only framing. Good shooting. — Fred Maplewood Photography
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You want the 24mm. If it’s too wide, you can always get closer.
Response:
A brief recap: About 6 months ago, I asked whether I needed to kiss 35mm goodbye in order to get good picture quality (i.e., sharpness like in magazines and books.) Following the good advice given here, I purchased a strong tripod and the Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. I also switched from Fuji SuperHQ 200 to Fuji Realla 100 film. The results have been – well – stunning. I’ve been very pleased with the resulting sharpness.
It’s amazing what a cheap 50mm lens and some nice film can do, isn’t it? I remember the first time I shot the same exact lens on some Kodachromes; WOW! <snip My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185)
If you are really enjoying your 50mm’s performance, go with one of these two. I have the 28mm f/2.8 and love it. This lens is just as sharp as the 28-70L at the 28mm setting, and I bet you anything it has less distortion (the 28mm f/2.8 has virtually no distortion to begin with). If you want to go a bit wider and can spend a little more money, go with the 24mm. I think the 24mm is a bit more serious of a wide-angle lens. I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price.
I can personally attest to the 28mm f/2.8 being optically a real winner. Most others also really love the 24mm f/2.8. I’m about to get the 24mm f/2.8 next. Don’t waste your time with the zooms, you’ll never be completely satisfied after shooting your 50mm prime, at least I haven’t. — Ryan Shaner
Response:
My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000) I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price.
No, it’s the best of the zoom lenses. There is no doubt that a fixed focal length wide angle will outperform it at the same focal length. These questions are difficult for an outsider because my shooting style, requirements and desires are different then yours or anybody else’s. So it’s pretty tough to give advice. Personally, I would go with the 24 because I don’t particularly care for zoom lenses. If I had to pick a zoom from the list, I’d opt for the 20~35 because the zoom range would be more useful to me than the range of the other zooms on your list-I’m a big fan of wide angles. I think you need to do some self discussion and decide what kind of photographs you want to make with your next lens. If you don’t you’ll just buy something because someone else suggested it was the right thing to do. That could be the single worst reason to make a purchase. Fred Maplewood Photography
Response:
Definitely get 28 lens. Hmm… 28-70/2.8 sounds interesting if you have the money for it. Zooms are more pratical to carry arround when you travel and i think they can’t be that bad for that money. If you can take a few shoots with the lens in the shop, develpo the film and then decide it.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A brief recap: About 6 months ago, I asked whether I needed to kiss 35mm goodbye in order to get good picture quality (i.e., sharpness like in magazines and books.) Following the good advice given here, I purchased a strong tripod and the Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. I also switched from Fuji SuperHQ 200 to Fuji Realla 100 film. The results have been – well – stunning. I’ve been very pleased with the resulting sharpness. I just finished a vacation trip where I only took my 50mm lens (and a monopod because the tripod/head combo was too big to carry through airports.) I also photographed a family gathering with it. For family gatherings, the lens works perfectly – I get the results I want and expect. For travel, though, it became very obvious that the vast majority of my pictures need a wider angle than I can get with the 50mm (moving backwards is usually not an option due to elements encroaching on the image like gates, towers, power lines, etc.) My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000) I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price. I had a 35-80mm cheap-o Canon lens and had problems at the wide end with distortion (looked like the world curved.) I also thought that 35mm was a tad too narrow a view in many situations. I’ve read the reviews on PhotographyReview.com, done the research, etc. etc. I’m just hoping to benefit from the fine advice available here. Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Scott E. Regener
Response:
You want the 24mm. If it’s too wide, you can always get closer.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A brief recap: About 6 months ago, I asked whether I needed to kiss 35mm goodbye in order to get good picture quality (i.e., sharpness like in magazines and books.) Following the good advice given here, I purchased a strong tripod and the Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. I also switched from Fuji SuperHQ 200 to Fuji Realla 100 film. The results have been – well – stunning. I’ve been very pleased with the resulting sharpness. I just finished a vacation trip where I only took my 50mm lens (and a monopod because the tripod/head combo was too big to carry through airports.) I also photographed a family gathering with it. For family gatherings, the lens works perfectly – I get the results I want and expect. For travel, though, it became very obvious that the vast majority of my pictures need a wider angle than I can get with the 50mm (moving backwards is usually not an option due to elements encroaching on the image like gates, towers, power lines, etc.) My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000) I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price. I had a 35-80mm cheap-o Canon lens and had problems at the wide end with distortion (looked like the world curved.) I also thought that 35mm was a tad too narrow a view in many situations. I’ve read the reviews on PhotographyReview.com, done the research, etc. etc. I’m just hoping to benefit from the fine advice available here. Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Scott E. Regener
Response:
I can’t help you directly because I don’t use cannon equipment. however I was in the same boat as you with my olympus OM-1. I had the 50mm and needed to go wider. I ended up going with a 28mm f3.5, because of cost. Now I often wish I had a fast 24mm for travel pics. Sorry I can’t be of more help. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I get the results I want and expect. For travel, though, it became very obvious that the vast majority of my pictures need a wider angle than I can get with the 50mm
Response:
I have the 28 2.8 EF and it’s just as sharp at the 50 1.8. Ron Walton Visit the BPC http://www.bpc.photographer.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A brief recap: About 6 months ago, I asked whether I needed to kiss 35mm goodbye in order to get good picture quality (i.e., sharpness like in magazines and books.) Following the good advice given here, I purchased a strong tripod and the Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. I also switched from Fuji SuperHQ 200 to Fuji Realla 100 film. The results have been – well – stunning. I’ve been very pleased with the resulting sharpness. I just finished a vacation trip where I only took my 50mm lens (and a monopod because the tripod/head combo was too big to carry through airports.) I also photographed a family gathering with it. For family gatherings, the lens works perfectly – I get the results I want and expect. For travel, though, it became very obvious that the vast majority of my pictures need a wider angle than I can get with the 50mm (moving backwards is usually not an option due to elements encroaching on the image like gates, towers, power lines, etc.) My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000) I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price. I had a 35-80mm cheap-o Canon lens and had problems at the wide end with distortion (looked like the world curved.) I also thought that 35mm was a tad too narrow a view in many situations. I’ve read the reviews on PhotographyReview.com, done the research, etc. etc. I’m just hoping to benefit from the fine advice available here. Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Scott E. Regener
Response:
A brief recap: About 6 months ago, I asked whether I needed to kiss 35mm goodbye in order to get good picture quality (i.e., sharpness like in magazines and books.) Following the good advice given here, I purchased a strong tripod and the Canon 50mm/1.8 II lens. I also switched from Fuji SuperHQ 200 to Fuji Realla 100 film. The results have been – well – stunning. I’ve been very pleased with the resulting sharpness. I just finished a vacation trip where I only took my 50mm lens (and a monopod because the tripod/head combo was too big to carry through airports.) I also photographed a family gathering with it. For family gatherings, the lens works perfectly – I get the results I want and expect. For travel, though, it became very obvious that the vast majority of my pictures need a wider angle than I can get with the 50mm (moving backwards is usually not an option due to elements encroaching on the image like gates, towers, power lines, etc.) My question to this group is: What should my next lens be? I don’t want to give up the sharpness I’m getting from my 50mm, but I also don’t want to spend a mint when less will do. Lenses I’m considering are: – Canon 24mm/2.8 (about $330) – Canon 28mm/2.8 (about $185) – Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 (about $400) – Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 (about $224) – Canon 28-70mm/2.8 L (about $1000) I *know* the L is by far the best lens of the group. But all the other lenses are under half the price. I had a 35-80mm cheap-o Canon lens and had problems at the wide end with distortion (looked like the world curved.) I also thought that 35mm was a tad too narrow a view in many situations. I’ve read the reviews on PhotographyReview.com, done the research, etc. etc. I’m just hoping to benefit from the fine advice available here. Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Scott E. Regener
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.