Canon wide angle prime lenses: 20/2.8 USM, 24/2.8, 28/1.8 USM, 28/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.4L vs 16-35mm f/2.8L II

Just published in DAP is my Canon Wide Primes piece, comparing the following Canon EF wide angle lenses to the Canon EF 16mm f/2.8L II zoom:

• Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM, about $469;
• Canon EF 24mm f/2.8, about $339;
• Canon EF 28mm f/2.8, about $259;
• Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, about $459;
• Canon EF 35mm f/2, about $329.
• Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L, about $1369.

Since each of these lenses by itself costs less than the $1420 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II zoom, what’s your smart move for both optical performance and value?

There are issues of optical quality, focusing speed, ergonomics and build quality, etc. But why pay top dollar if you only need one or two focal lengths and quality is similar? That’s the question I set out to answer.

After analyzing the results for this review, I remain committed more than ever to my trusty Zeiss lenses, but autofocus is a requirement for some uses, and price is always an issue. But that’s not to say that some of these lenses don’t have good qualities, and the prices are very attractive.

For my shooting, I’d dispense with all these lenses for just one lens that outperforms them all: the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon (or if you need autofocus, the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II). Zooms are overrated, and generally impair my ability to make good images. I use zooms only when I anticipate the inability to gain the access/perspective I want (“foot zoom”), such as with people.