# Canon 20mm f/2.8 vs. Sigma 20mm f/1.8



## Josh66 (May 21, 2008)

I'm having some trouble deciding...

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM

or

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG DF RF

I'm leaning towards the Canon, but I thought I'd ask you guys before I spend any money...  Anybody have experience with either of these lenses?

I'll mostly be using it outside with lots of light and inside with typical "living room" light levels.  I don't think I really _need_ the f/1.8, but it couldn't hurt - not a deciding factor.

If there's another lens that I've overlooked I'd like to hear about that too.  I'd like to keep this under $600, including a hood (which the Canon lenses don't come with...).  No EF-S lenses though, I need to be able to use it on a full frame/film body.

Thanks.


----------



## evo5gsr (May 21, 2008)

Based on photozone.de's reviews, I'd stay away from the Sigma lens, though the Canon isn't something to write home about, either.


----------



## Josh66 (May 21, 2008)

Hmm...

I might have to go with the EF 24mm f/2.8 instead, it seems to be the only non-L wide angle lens that Canon has with OK reviews...  Hexagonal bokeh and no USM seem to be the only major drawbacks.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 3, 2008)

Any more wide angle suggestions for Canon?  I'll be placing the order in the next few days.

Unless someone talks me into something else I'm going to go with the 24mm f/2.8.  I was hoping for something a little wider than that, but everything that wide (in my price range) seems to be getting pretty crappy reviews.  Budget is $500.  I might be able to go a little higher, but not much.


----------



## latvianbilly (Jul 7, 2008)

24mm 1.4L!  But i had the same trouble some time ago choosing prime wide, and i ended up choosing betweeen these two also. The thing that bothers me about canon is that only prime wide lense with large aperture is 24mm 1.4L, but its out of price range for a while... So i ended up not needing so much this lense and using my 17-40 with glash and 50mm 1.4 and add the money to buy a 70-200 f2.8 IS!


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 5, 2008)

I'm finally getting some overtime at work, so I'll actually be able to get one of these soon...

Right now it's between the 20mm 2.8 and the 28mm 1.8.

Having trouble deciding.  The extra 2/3 of a stop on the 28mm would be nice, but I could live with f/2.8...  I've decided that I don't want the 24mm anymore.  If there's a lens I'm overlooking feel free to suggest it.
My only requirements are wide angle (how wide is not decided for sure yet), $500 or less, and no EF-S lenses - I need to be able to use it on a 35mm body.

The only problem I have with the 20mm so far is that I would have to buy new filters for it (it's 72mm, all my filters are 67mm), but that alone wouldn't stop me from buying it.  I'm really leaning towards the 28mm though...

Anyone used either of these lenses?


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Oct 5, 2008)

if the speed isnt too much of an issue, the 17-40mm F4L is only about 200 more i believe...


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 5, 2008)

Hmm...  That could be an option too.  I'm worried that it might be too slow though.

I think I'll primarily be using it indoors (where the 50mm is often too long), so I might need the extra speed.  (LOL, I just noticed that this is pretty much the opposite of what I said in the original post here, but yeah - indoors, not much light.)

Man, it's so hard to decide.  This will probably be the only lens purchase I'll be able to make for a while (and really the only thing my camera bag is missing, other than 300mm+ lenses - but that ain't gonna to happen any time soon), so I want to make sure I get the right one...


----------



## S2K1 (Oct 6, 2008)

I have a 17-40 and I still want a fast prime. It is too slow for a lot of situations I shoot in. I'll probably end up saving for a while and getting the 24 f/1.4L because I rented it and loved it. The only other one I'd consider is the 28mm f/1.8 because of it's pretty solid reviews, but it's not wide enough for me. I am in the same situation, I want to shoot indoors with low light and 50mm is too long. I'd say go with the 28mm f/1.8 if you absolutely need one now, or save up for the 24 f/1.4L.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 6, 2008)

S2K1 said:


> I'd say go with the 28mm f/1.8 if you absolutely need one now, or save up for the 24 f/1.4L.



I think that's what I'm going to do (28mm), the 24 f/1.4L is just too far out of my price range.  There's no way I'll be able to talk the wife into letting me spend $1000+ on a lens right now - the $420 for the 28mm on the other hand, I can cover with just the overtime from one check.


----------



## William Petruzzo (Oct 6, 2008)

The Canon 15mm 2.8 is a stellar lens. But I suppose you have to be into the fisheye flow.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 6, 2008)

Yeah, that's a little wider than I had in mind.  

Wouldn't mind having one, but it's not exactly at the top of the list.


----------

