> I have, but in different light conditions for both lenses, so it might not
> be revealing, but the 20mm seemed to be extremely sharp. The pictures I
got
> from it are impressive in contrast/sharpness, while the pictures taken
with
> the 20-35 seem muddier, but again, it might be the light conditions, film,
> etc...
>
> I think my first choice goes to the 20mm, but I would prefer the zoom if
> it's as sharp... which it probably can't be.
>
> Pierre
If you take a look at the Photodo results for the EF 20-35 when it's
stopped down a bit, you'll see it has very high numbers. And, after all,
that's where you will be using it mostly. As for shooting wide open, I've
done it a lot with excellent results as well.
I tossed the question of the zoom versus the prime around for a couple
months, and was all ready to plunk down for the prime 24mm lens, then I had
a last minute thought about not being able to zoom, and I just said, that's
it, I'm getting the zoom, sharpness be damned - framing is everything in
this range. I have not regretted it ever, and I love this lens. For me,
distortion is not a factor; I'm not shooting graph paper with it. At the
35mm end of the range though, it has literally no distortion in the tests
that I did.
One thing about this lens though, is the USM is soooo great. Unless
you're shooting architectural stuff, get the zoom, you won't be sorry, but
you'll be so glad you did get it when you have the ability to frame your
shots just the way you want them. I shoot a lot of stuff at 22mm, 23mm,
26mm, etc etc...
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
