[Brightcolours]

Ken Rockwell likes the 20/2.8 with its "intelligent field curvature". (*snicker*) But Ken is a weird type. Most of the other tests I've seen (the Photozone itself, SLRGear, TDP and the now-defunct SLRLensReview.com) seem to indicate that it'd be better not to bother. To quote the SLRLensReview on this one:

 

http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/can...ens-review (That site hasn't been updated in ages but old reviews are still accessible. It was the only site I've found to carry a review of my favourite Sigma 14mm f/2.8, that's why I liked it. )

 

Re: the 20/2.8 again, I would've probably chosen the 17-40L instead if I had been lacking money for something better. Although, if I had been wanting financially, I would not have gone FF at all because good glass is mostly expensive in that land - things are usually cheaper in the APS-C realm.

Lenstip, Photozone and SLRlensreview all test the lens at MFT distance, which is very close by for a 20mm lens due to the chart size. Hence, not always do such tests show how a lens performs in real usage, especially with short focal length/wide FOV lenses.

 

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/10/...uLMNSl3KfR

 

https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=724...none&res=3

 

It is a better performer than the 17-40mm f4 L USM. Although one would not say that when just looking at such MFT tests, without  realizing the test constraints. Especially with DPP and its lens correction, the EF 20mm f2.8 is a pretty good proposition, considering its price and weight/size.