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

[chaosboi]

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?

[3bayjunkie]

it would just be a slightly sharper image.

[RichardTaylor]

(1) Lens hoods work better on primes as they only have to cover one focal length.

(2) The prime will fit a full fame camera.

I shoot with both primes and zoom lenses, but do not own either of the two lenses.

Personally I wouldn't buy the 20mm F2.8

You may find this review of interest.

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Lens Review

[RichardTaylor]

@ 3bayjunkie

"quote"
it would just be a slightly sharper image.
"End quote".

Not necessarily.

See the above review.

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

@ 3bayjunkie

"quote"
it would just be a slightly sharper image.
"End quote".

Not necessarily.

See the above review.

I agree completely - the older lenses, designed for film, especially at the wide angles, tend not to hit the sensor as squarely as the modern designs for digital, and lose alot. Some sensors and microlense combinations work better than others with older film designs - but the 20mm for nikon, definitely is pretty bad on "crop frame" sensors, and I think it's better on film than it is on my d700.