Anyone Using A 20mm Lens On Canon FF?

Currently preparing to upgrade into a DSLR system. I've long since sold off my old Nikkor SLR lenses, so I'd be starting from scratch. Initially I was leaning toward a D200 or the new D300.

Then I considered the Canon 5D. They're available at a decent cost on eBay. I'd really be interested in using a 20mm lens for wide angle. One of my biggest SLR housing dislikes from the film days was dealing with aperture and focus gears. A prime lens with huge depth-of-field, and no aperture ring. That should be an absolute joy.

It seems that everyone is using exotic zooms, but does anyone use the "normal" prime lenses?

Currently preparing to upgrade into a DSLR system. I've long since sold off my old Nikkor SLR lenses, so I'd be starting from scratch. Initially I was leaning toward a D200 or the new D300.

 

Then I considered the Canon 5D. They're available at a decent cost on eBay. I'd really be interested in using a 20mm lens for wide angle. One of my biggest SLR housing dislikes from the film days was dealing with aperture and focus gears. A prime lens with huge depth-of-field, and no aperture ring. That should be an absolute joy.

 

It seems that everyone is using exotic zooms, but does anyone use the "normal" prime lenses?

I must say that I've got no experience on a 20mm lens underwater, but I do use a Sigma 20mm/1.8 lens extensively on land and has gained some very very very good results.

I'm sorry that ikelite hasn't came up with a port that can accommodate this 20/1.8 lens as I'm using their 5D housing and ports and strobes. I bet the 20mm lens can be a useful tool for reef scene and shark, just as what I've seen from other underwater photographers. I remember one of our host here has had a lot of good photo that was taken with this 20/1.8 lens, especially those shark pics from the Bahamas.

It seems that everyone is using exotic zooms, but does anyone use the "normal" prime lenses?

Just to add a general comment (as I am not a Canon shooter) I think that there are lots of people using primes - it is just we discuss using zooms a lot as there is much more to debate (zoom gears, right extention port etc etc).

I have used the Nikon 20mm a lot, particularly on FF, but also a little on DX. Although I tend to favour the amazing Nikon 17-35mm because I feel it has better image quality.

I think the Canon 24mm is particularly popular on FF.

Alex

...A prime lens with huge depth-of-field, and no aperture ring. That should be an absolute joy...

I thought so too.

I was shooting the 14mm canon on my 5D.

Too wide IMHO. Cannot get the corners sharp to save my life.

Wonderful WA close up as a bonus.

Just have to learn to crop

I've moved ont the 16-35. While there is a zoom ring, the aperture is constant.

I think that only hang to mess with the zoom (and I don't change it much during a dive) beatc having to mess with the aperture too.

[ I'd really be interested in using a 20mm lens for wide angle.]

I've used both Canon 20 2.8 and Sigma 1.8 underwater on Canon full frame 1dsmk2, Seacam housing.

IMO, center sharpness is similar, but Sigma is better in the corners. AF probably a touch faster on the Canon, but the Sigma is OK. Neither lens is perfect, but then again the zooms aren't either. I sold the Canon a while back, and now only use the Sigma is 20mm is required.

One thing to consider- not all lenses, Sigma or Canon, are created equally. If you go with the Sigma, I would strongly recommended buying two or three and testing them. Unfortunately, I (and others) have found that some are sharper than others... When you find a good one, it handedly beats the Canon in the corners.

Full frame does not have a perfect solution (yet, if ever) for sharp corners. IMO. And I must say that I have wasted a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money searching for wide angle bliss on full frame cameras...

brandon

Sadly although I've tried Canon's 20mm both on land and underwater, on FF digital it is not a good performer. Corners are soft on land let alone behind a dome and most reviews back this up. I've not tried the Sigma, which is also a faster lens, and I doubt that it can be any worse. Nikon's 20mm used to be a lovely lens on film and I'd like to know how it performs on the D3, it would be possible to adapt it to Canon FF digital but this just isn't worth the bother.

I use the 24/1.4 - excellent and it works tolerably well behind smaller ports too.

I really like the Sigma 24mm F/1.8 macro. It'll focus down to 18cm in air. Underwater, it'll focus on subjects right on the surface of a 6" dome. Here's a few shots I posted earlier using an 8" dome with no diopter.

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19405

I have some recent shot with a 6" dome that I'm still sorting out. I think the lens worked very well there also.

Herb, those are quite nice.

The 5D intrigues me because of the large viewfinder. I would find it easier to spend a bit more on the camera, and perhaps not need to buy an extra viewfinder for the housing.

Brandon, I'll heed that advice. Way back in the early 1990s I had a Sigma 28mm F/1.8. It was the worst lens I've ever used. Nothing, I mean nothing was sharp. Not only that, but the focusing wasn't nearly as good as my Canon lenses back then. We're talking about using EOS 620 and 630 bodies.

In the late 90's I sold the Canon stuff and switched to a Nikon 8008 and N90. My Aquatica housing for the 8008 was built like a tank but I sometimes had issues lining the focus gears up. I found that very frustrating. Would today's housings be any easier?

Honestly, I can not answer that question about the Aquatica gearing. I used to own many Aquaticas in the early to mid 90s, and yes, the gearing wasn't great on some lenses. I'm sure there are other people here who can answer as to the performance of today's Aquatica's housings.

brandon

In the late 90's I sold the Canon stuff and switched to a Nikon 8008 and N90. My Aquatica housing for the 8008 was built like a tank but I sometimes had issues lining the focus gears up. I found that very frustrating. Would today's housings be any easier?

I don't have any trouble with the gears (if you read and follow the directions for installation of the gears on the lens) on my Aquatica D200 housing, except that for large diameter lenses; you have to remove the dome, lens and camera to change the darn battery. The gear gets in the way of some of the inner guts of the housing. PITA.

Cheers,

Marli

I concur w/ Brandon (he and I have talked about this many times). If you have to have a 20mm on FF the Sigma is the way to go. The 17mm Tokina prime is also excellent. Not quite as wide, and you should look at the Canon 24mm 1.4L if you have the $$$, otherwise the Sigma that Herb mentioned is highly regarded.

The gearing w/ my Seacam has been excellent so far. I have not had any problems w/ the recent Aquatica gearing either.

Cheers

James

I'll second everything said on here. I used the Canon 20 on the 5D, and I never liked the results. It always looked odd to me - the photos from the Sigma 20 look better. I don't know if there is some distortion or what, but I never grew to like the lens.

The Canon 24 is excellent underwater.

The Aquatica zoom gearing on the 5D housing is excellent. I shoot primarily with the 17-40L zoom but have had very nice results with the 24mm f1.4 lens. I didn't like the plastic gearing on my original Ikelite housing so the metal zoom ring construction of the Aquatica was like heaven.

I continue to consider selling my 5d and Aquatica housing but just can't seem to pull the trigger. The 40D and 14 bit color is tempting but the 1.6FOVCF is a definite downside for wide angle ease.