Low used price. I like the size and weight. I can share filters with my 28-135mm IS. I like the focal length.

This lens is not as sharp as I expect from a prime and is not as sharp as the 17-40L that I replaced it with.

I bought this lens to get a bit wider than The 28-135mm IS which was my first lens for the new 10D. I liked the reasonable size and that I could share the 72mm filters with the 28-135IS. I am not happy with the sharpness of this lens at any f/stop and will not use it at all wide open. I don't know if this is a bad copy or not but since I don't have a warranty to return it to Canon; I will soon E-bay it off.

Customer Service

Canon's customer service is IMO generally excellent. I have not returned the lens to Canon since I don't have a guarantee.

Similar Products Used:

17-40 f/4L and several other Canon and tokina lenses.

reasonably sharp, usm focus, excellent build quality, accepts 72 mm filters

vignetting, some CA, soft at f2.8

Reasonably sharp wide-angle lens. There is slight red-green fringing, similar to 15 mm fisheye. Purple fringing is absent. Strong vignetting at f2.8-f4, but this goes away at f8 and higher. Good centre sharpness, but the corners are a bit soft at f2.8, and this improves by f5.6. Gives a bit of a reddish/magenta color cast, e.g. skies look slightly purple, colors are warm. I shopped around quite a while before I bought this lens. Other products tested: Tamron 19-35 (250 CAD, owned it and sold it, very blurry except at 24 mm f16, useless autofocus, severe purple fringing); Tamron 17-35 (700 CAD, store test, good centre sharpness but very soft corners at f5.6 or less, severe purple fringing); Canon 15 mm fisheye (1000 CAD, borrowed from a friend, very similar lens in many categories); Canon 17-40L (1000 CAD, store test, I could not tell the difference in sharpness between this lens and the 20 mm from my informal store test, but I'm sure in detail the 17-40 will be a bit better) I was interested in the Sigma 20 mm f1.8 since I do some astrophotography but none of the stores in town stocked it and I did not get a chance to try it. The 82 mm front element also scared me a bit, and I already own 72 mm filters so I went with the 20 mm. I think this lens blows away the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 which is similar in price but does not have usm, has poorer corner sharpness, suffers from strong purple fringing, poorer build quality, no resale value, and is overrated and overpriced IMO) I'm sure the 17-40L is a better lens, but it costs 300 CAD more. Whether it is worth it depends on your price point. At 670 CAD I think the 20 mm is correctly priced, you get what you pay for.

Customer Service

n/a

Does a great job

I just know that the lens hood is going to fall off and get lost one day

One thing I still like about primes is the depth of field scale so I bought this for a digital wide as a close substitue for the 28mm I normally use with 35mm. Not great at f2.8 but then whats new. Snaps into very usable sharpness at f4 which is what I would expect. This is the focal length that I use all the time and there is nothing about its performance, on my digital, that would give me cause for concern.

Customer Service

na

Similar Products Used:

FD lenses for many years

Sharp at f5.6 to f8. Very contrasty lens.

Color rendition is somewhat cool. Contrast may be a bit much. Really soft wide open. Over priced by a long shot.

A necessary addition to any arsenal. This lens gets the job done, unspectacularly perhaps, but it is a yeoman performer under all conditions.

Similar Products Used:

This is the second 20mm f2.8 I've had (got stolen). Odd that the first one seemed to be a much better performer than this second lens.

fixed lens ..sharp ---good distortion-.. good colours-strong made. pro like.. fast ..fast

none

This an awesome lens IF you get a good sample!! the problem is that you can get a 5 star performer for less money than you think,if you get a good sample! you see canon makes a hole line of super products; 100 mm 2,0(not macro) 20-35 mm 3,5 -4.5, 24-85mm 3,5-4.5,and the 135 mm Soft and of course the 50 mm 1,8 who all has their looks against them; they are not black with a red stripe on. In fact IF you get a good sample they beat almost anything for less than half the price of the famed L glass. The L glass series is a little guarantee that you as a custómer get sort of high end glass ! but believe me,even L glass differ very much ! I have experienced great variations no matter the brand or name on it. I usually buy (order) alt least three or at least test 3 different glasses and get the best for my self! it works. back to the 20 mm; its on par with their 20-35 and absolutely good. Try it anytime even if youre pro you will be positively surprised.Good Luck.

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

many types

f/2.8 is fast Reasonably priced Sharp, great colors Built well

Somewhat prone to flair (a lens hood may be worth it) 72mm filters aren't cheap to say the least...

I wanted a wide angle lens and figured I would go for the 14mm until I realized how much that thing costs. So I wanted to go Canon and I got this lens. I really like it a lot. It is fast, sharp and produces great colors. Unlike this guy below me, I think that this lens is built very solid. If you are looking to go wide, this is an awesome buy for the money...you will be surprised how much wider it is than 28mm.

Customer Service

Never Used

Similar Products Used:

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM Canon 28-80mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Canon 28-90mm f/4-f/5.6 USM

- USM - fast focus - light - f/2.8

- not exactly a solid build - not as sharp as I expected. rather soft

I've had a chance to play with this lens while vactioning last year in Europe. I bought this lens because I needed good wide angle equipment for architectural and general outdoor photography. The results that turnedout where rather ok. Honestly I was disappointed with the quality of the prints, considering the fact that I went for a brand and expected much higher results from Canon. I read some of the reviews and noticed a lot people saying that it has "solid finish and feel". Surprisingly enough I didn't get this feeling. It felt as if it was just OK. So either don't buy at Ritz or this lens is "so so".

Similar Products Used:

None in the area of normal super wide angles. The only one I've used (compared to focal lengths) was a Sigma 15mm fisheye f/2.8 EX and still have it. I got much sharper results out of a Sigma.

FAST FOCUS USM, EXCELLENT PICTURE & BUILD QUALITY.

NONE THAT I COULD SEE.

I USE THIS LENS MAINLY FOR CANDIDS SHOTS AT WEDDINGS USING A D60 AND REALLY HAVE TO SAY ITS A GREAT LENS. OPTICAL QUALITY IS EXCELLENT. FOCUS IS FAST AND WIDE OPEN I DO NOT GAET ANY FLARE. THIS LENS A KEEPER AND GREAT QUALITY FOR THE MONEY. I PRINTED A 16X20 AND IT IS VERY SHARP. IF YOU NEED A WIDE ANGLE FIXED FOCAL THIS IS THE ONE.

Customer Service

GREAT

Similar Products Used:

28MM CONTAX, 35 MM CONTAX

Smaller than a zoom, reasonably compact, good all round mechanical and optical function.

Light falloff and soft image quality in the corners wide open.

This is a useful super wide lens which can be hand held for indoor architectural photos and is excellent for close up social documentary or landscape with super depth of field. It is smaller and lighter than a zoom. It feels mechanically solid and has FT-M which is excellent. AF apears quite accurate. There is quite noticeable light falloff at the edges at f2.8. This clears up considerably by f8. Image definition is very good to excellent at all apertures in the central zone with a diameter of about 15 mm. The edges and particularly the corners are soft with low contrast at f2.8, cleaning up by f8. There is slight pincushion distortion observable at the edges with straight line architectural subjects. The lens is quite satisfactory for architecture however as the amount of distortion is low, less than the 24f2.8. The out of focus image is smooth. I rate this lens similar in image quality to the TSE 24 f3.5 in the central zone,and about equal in the corners at f8, ( with the TSE not shifted ).

Customer Service

Good from Canon Australia. My first lens had several pieces of foreign matter on an inner lens element. Canon replaced the unit with no problems.

Similar Products Used:

EF 24 f2.8, TSE 24 f 3.5.

Very Sharp Lens. Distortion well controlled. Excellent quality photos -- especially at f/8 or f/11. Build quality inspires confidence. DOF scale very usable. The price is very fair for the quality.

Slight light falloff at f/2.8 and f/4 and almost gone at f/5.6. Although, I don't care since I use f/8 - f/11 for landscape and architecture shooting. My experience shows that almost all wide angle lenses show some falloff at edges when used at wide aperatures, so Canon isn't alone here.

I use this lens primarily at f/8 or f/11 and find it very sharp and contrasty. I experimented in the field at shooting some shots at f/2.8-f/4 and found noticable light falloff at the edges. Although, all of my Voigtlander's 12mm & 15mm wide-angle lenses show noticable light falloff, at wide apertures, so I expect light fallof this on canon also. The distortion is well controlled on this lens since I shot cathedrals all over England with this lens and the edges show straight lines. I also have the EF 24mm-TS and shot these two lenses side by side tripod mounted with a spirit-level and the EF-20mm proved slightly sharper. I'm very happy with this purchase and recommend this lens to anyone who shoots at f/5.6 or lower.

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

Voigtlander 12mm and 15mm. Canon EF 24mm-TS, EF-28mm, EF-35mm Sigma 17-35mm Pentax 24mm f/2