Canon EF 28mm 1.8, or 20mm 2.8?

T

themagichoof

Active member
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_20mm_f_2_8_usm

Vs.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_28_1_8_usm

The prices are very similar. I'm not sure what I should go with. A bit of a wider angle sounds nice on the 20mm 2.8, but maybe I should just move the camera back a little and go with the 28mm 1.8 for more aperture. Then again I film almost exclusively indoors... I'm not sure the extra 8mm or wideness will benefit me more than the 1.0 more aperture. What would you go with?
 
Last edited:
The visual perspective difference between focal lengths in the wider end is exponential; so the difference between a 20mm and a 28mm is drastic, but the difference between a 50mm and 55m is negligible.

Get both. Or, get your preference, and then fill in the other focal length with a less expensive lens, like a Nikon AI, or just save up the money for both.

There's a reason standard cinema lens sets often come with a 16mm, 25mm, and 35mm, or an 18mm, 24mm, and 35mm, or some such combination, along with a 50mm and an 85mm.
 
I'd go with both but, if you can only afford one, go with the 20mm. Trust me when I tell you that you can't always move a bit back. You're going to want that extra coverage. I have a 24mm as my widest prime but I still have to pull out my 18-50mm kit lens to get as wide as I want on certain shots.
 
What has the bigger difference: -8mm of angle/wideness, or -1.0 of aperture? I'm shooting indoors, mostly interview and subject footage. I'm not sure how much a single F-Stop or so will help with a shallow depth of field, but from the looks of it, 8mm of a focal length is great if you shoot in small places like you see here: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

I used to use an HF100 and according to calculations, the 28mm lens on a 60D will give me roughly the same view as the HF100. I was satisfied with that. That's why I was leaning toward the 28mm 1.8. But then again, my math might be wrong. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
I don't know about the HF100 but I spent a number of years shooting with cameras like the DVX100, HVX200, and EX1. Zoomed out all the way on those cameras is the equivelant to an 18mm lens on the 60D so 20mm is a lot closer to making me happy. When I'm sticking to primes, I often have frustrations using a 24mm as my widest. 28mm is definatley not enough for me.
 
If you are wanting a true wide angle lens for covering interiors then have a look at the Tokina 11-16mm.

For what it's worth, even though I own a couple of Canon bodies, I do not have much money tied up in EF mount electronic lenses. Most of my lenses are manual and will work with any camera. Something to think about when shopping for glass that is future proof.

Also a 20mm lens would not be my first choice for a flattering interview lens, and the stop gained is a mute point with interview lighting.

If it were me, I would invest in a set of fast manual prime lenses, rather than tie up my cash in one or two expensive electronic mount lenses. Then add a couple of electronic controlled f2.8 zooms for working quickly.
 
My opinion is this....... 28mm is a perfect lens that if you know how to frame can almost shoot any and everything you want. Sometimes when using a wide lens you end up getting things in your shot that you do not want. Lately I have been using my 28mm lens as my primary lens as well as a 50mm lens. My next purchase will be an 85mm lens for those shots I like to steal when running and gunning.


Personally I have used the tokina 11-16mm lens and think it's great, but not really worth the price of admission. Also I just bought a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 lens and it allows for any wide shots I want to do. Problem is that when using wide shots with these cameras you lose detail and are moire susceptible to moire and aliasing. Hence the reason why I love shooting 28mm and above so I can frame medium to close up shots.
 
I'd like to invest in something future proof, sure, but aren't the EF lenses pretty much the best you can get for the price? If I can get something that's just as good, but cheaper than either of the lenses that I'm contemplating, then I may go with one of those.

As of right now I'm leaning toward the 28mm 1.8. There's definitely a noticeable difference in the 28mm Vs. 20mm lenses as you can see by the link posted above. Logic is telling me the lens looks slightly better since it gets to 'open up' earlier. So right now I'm looking for some comparison pictures or video that shows the difference between a 1.8 and a 2.8 aperture. Haven't found those yet.
 
David W. Jones said:
Unless you are shooting interviews in a room where you can't get closer, or move back farther. Which happens all the time in the real world.
Click to expand...

What he said. I would find life very frustrating if the widest I could get was 28mm.

I'd like to invest in something future proof, sure, but aren't the EF lenses pretty much the best you can get for the price? If I can get something that's just as good, but cheaper than either of the lenses that I'm contemplating, then I may go with one of those.
Click to expand...

The best you can get is vintage lenses actually (and they'll keep their value since they will work on just about any camera). With the money you were planning on spending on just one of these lenses, you could get a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 ($70-$85), a Nikkor 35mm f2 ($75-$100), and a Nikkor 20mm f2.8 ($215-$400). Now you've got a range of great primes that are fast and affordable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top