User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Worth getting 20mm f/2.8 if I have a 17-55mm f/2.8?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    16 Sep 2011
    Location
    Ipswich
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Worth getting 20mm f/2.8 if I have a 17-55mm f/2.8?

    Is it worth getting a prime lens if my telephoto covers the same range at the same speed?

    Eg, I currently have the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, what, if any, would be the advantages of a 20mm f/2.8 prime?
    Last edited by chaosboi; 17-09-2011 at 9:45pm.
    www.chaosboi.com
    Canon 60d - 28mm f/1.8 - 50mm f/1.4 - 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 70-200 f/2.8L
    Fujifilm X100
    iPhone 4 for some extra fun on the run!

  2. #2
    Member bushbikie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sth Brisbane
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IMO only if the 20mm prime gives you better image quality, you don't mind using your feet to zoom in/out, and you will use it often enough to justify the purchase. Do some research on the lens you are thinking of getting and see how it compares to your existing lens.
    5D MkII Gripped | EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | EF 50mm f/1.4 USM | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro | Extender 2x II | 580EX II & 430EX II Speedlites
    Wanted: The list is long.......so very long........(sighs)
    Oldies but still goodies: AE-1+Program | FD 28mm f/2.8 | FD 50mm f/1.4 | FD 70-210 f/4

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular Brian500au's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,056
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do you really think you are going to see some improvement with a prime over what some rate as the best non "L" zoom around? What is your purpose to consider the 20mm prime?
    www.kjbphotography.com.au

    1Dx, 5DsR, 200-400 f4L Ext, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II, 70-300 f4-5.6L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 16-35 f4 IS, 11-24 f4L, 85 f1.2L II, 500 f4L IS, 300 f2.8 IS, ∑50 f1.4 A


  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Portability
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    16 Sep 2011
    Location
    Ipswich
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian500au View Post
    What is your purpose to consider the 20mm prime?
    This question is just out of interest, I have no immediate plans to purchase a 20mm prime. I'm just curious if a prime would be much the same as a telephoto if the speed of the lens is the same.
    Last edited by chaosboi; 18-09-2011 at 3:21pm.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Aug 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    might consider the 28mm f/1.8 and get the advantage of 1 and a bit stops of light
    1DIII, 5DII, 15mm fish, 24mm ts-e, 35L,135L,200L,400L,mpe-65mm
    Film: eos 300, pentax 6x7

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular Brian500au's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,056
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chaosboi View Post
    This question is just out of interest, I have no immediate plans to purchase a 20mm prime. I'm just curious if a prime would be much the same as a telephoto if the speed of the lens is the same.
    Generally speaking (and this is general) most primes are traditionally sharper than the equivalent in the zoom - but the 17-55 is a stellar lens and is considered the best non "L" zoom canon make.

  8. #8
    Member KeeFy's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Mar 2011
    Location
    Newtown
    Posts
    470
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Advantages - Size, weight, Image Quality (not by much vs the 17-55)

    Disadvantages - No zoom, no IS, Extra $$ out of your pocket for something you already have. Carrying extra glass that you won't use unless you have a full frame (EF mount vs EF-S mount).

    Now if you said the 24 1.4L. It's a different case altogether. The 17-55 is a 1/2 L lens in my opinion. All the goodness of a L lens without the weather sealing and build quality.
    Last edited by KeeFy; 19-09-2011 at 10:42am.

  9. #9
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What Keefy said.

    If you find you are often using the 17-55 at around the 28mm mark, and you are finding some problem with your current lens at that focal length, then it might be worthwhile, but I doubt that you will see any difference in quality between the 2 lenses at that focal length.
    I have the 24-105L lens, and I also have the 28mm F2.8, but I generally only use the 28mm lens when I'm going out to a party etc., and just want a small, light, wide-angle lens on the camera.
    It takes good pics, but they aren't better than the 24-105, it's just that the 28mm is convenient when you are doing inside shots and just want have a very small lens on your camera.
    Personally, in your position, I'd be looking at a much wider angle lens to compliment your other lenses.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •