Sharpness Light and compact compared to "L" zoom

Ghosting Brightness and contrast The sample I have seems to underexpose by 1/3 stop. Doesn't sound like much but it's enough to notice when it does it all the time.

I compared the 20mm to the 17-35 "L", which it seems everyone hates. The 20mm is somewhat sharper wide open and at f8, but there are also some shortcomings. The 17-35 might not be a great design, but it use better glass and coatings than the 20mm. I disagree with the reviewer who said that the 20mm has better contrast than the 17-35. In my comparison the difference was obvious, and it favored the 17-35. Also, ghosting is just a minor discoloration in the 17-35 images rather than several glaring white polygons that the 20mm shows. I judged distortion of the two lenses to be about the same. Based on other comments and reviews I was hoping the 20mm would be an improvement over the 17-35 in this area, but since now I don't think it is I will probably return the lens and stick with the much-maligned 17-35 for now.

Customer Service

OK

Similar Products Used:

17-35, Canon 50

Well build Sharp, even at 2.8 USM Close focusing ability Minimal distortion

None that I can think of.

I initially used this lens on my A2, but now use it on my D60 as well, which obviously "changes" the field of view of the lens into a 32mm. However, I love the lens both ways. It displays remarkably little distortion for such a wide-angle lens and is sharp corner to corner, while allowing you to focus very closely. Of course, obtaining good depth of field is not much of an issue and even at 2.8 I manage to get pictures that look pretty sharp throughout, which is great for low-light situations. Overall a great lens at a reasonable price.

Customer Service

Not needed.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 24mm 2.8 Canon 28mm 2.8

USM close focusing sharpnest and contrast

I bought this one, becouse I don`t like quality of zoom lenses (17-35;16-35), and believe me it`s much more sharper and contrast than zoom lens. Close focusing is great. Simply very good lens for lots of styles of photography.

Customer Service

Never used and hopefully never will.

Similar Products Used:

17-35 16-35

- USM Pro - Extremelly sharp - Distorsion well controlled

- Price - Lens Hood not include - Bigger than other manufacturer

28mm was not enough for my needs (architecture and landscape). I buy it and I nerver regret it. You must have this lens if you go in Europe (for achitecture).

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor AF-D 20mm

sharp, light.

-

great lens, sharp, contrasty. I have seen none of the vignetting someone mentions. far better than the sigma 17-35 i replaced.

Customer Service

never used

Similar Products Used:

sigma 17-35

Well built, fast, sharp, good color contrast, Full time manual focus, quick and quiet focusing

none

This is my second wide angle lens after my nice little 28 f2.8. It took a little while to learn how to see with this lens because it is really wide! It's really nice for landscape because of the wide angle of view. I do not experience too much problem of flare probably because I use the matched hood.

Customer Service

haven't tried yet.

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 28 f2.8

Good sharpness and contrast. Well built, light and easy to handle. This focal length is excellent for landscapes.

A bit prone to flare.

I like this lens. It has consistently given me good results. I also liked the zoom when I had it but soon realized that I used it at the 20 or 35 settings all the time (no surprise since that were the FD primes I had been using), so I went back to primes. The zoom is convenient but the primes are sharper, especially wide open. Using primes will also force you to think differently about composition. Get this lens if your focus is on landscapes but get the 17-35 zoom if you are doing photojournalism or travel work.

Customer Service

Canon service is first rate where I live.

Similar Products Used:

In this range, FD 20/2.8, EF 20-35/2.8L

The EF 20mm f/2.8 is a sweet, utrawide angle lens. It's well-made and produses sharp, contrasty images. Distortion is very minimal for this type of lens.

Not much of a DEF scale, which is typical of most new lenses these days. Lens shade a bit tricky to mount, but seems effective.

Certainly more costly than the standard wide angle lenses, you get something that really works wonders in tight quarters or when you need to squeeze a lot in the frame. I keep my 20mm f/2.8 on one of my A2 bodies, all the time. I have recorded numerous images that I would have otherwise not because I had such a wide angle of view.

Customer Service

Never required Canon's service facilties for lenses, as of yet.

Similar Products Used:

FD 24mm f/2.8

Well built, quiet focusing.

A little on the large side (72mm diameter),which is not a weakness so much as a factor that means filters for this lens will be a bit more expensive

This lens is superior in every way to my Sigma 24mm. It cost more than twice as much, but the Canon lens's image quality is unbeatable. The ability to focus on objects less than 6 inches away is a big plus for me. The 72mm diameter of the lens could be discouraging for some; however, my other lens (Canon EF 28-135) is also 72mm, so my filters screw onto both lenses without adapter rings or other extras. Vignetting with multiple filters at wide f-stops, yes, but what do you expect?

Customer Service

Not used.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 24mm lens for Minolta

Well built, sharp quiet and fast focusing.

none

This is another Canon lens that could be an L series lens. Very sharp and survives heavy use as well as any lens i've used.

Customer Service

not used

Similar Products Used:

none