Could someone who has used EF prime wide angles as well as the 20- 35L, 17-35L, or EF 20-35 give me a comparison of their flare characteristics? I currently use the EF 24/2.8 and 35/2.0 and shoot them directly into the sun, often with grad ND filters. Even stopped down, of course, there is some flare. I would like to get something a little wider than 24. Because of the relatively high price and weight of the EF 20/2.8, I am considering one of the zooms--perhaps to even replace the primes if good enough. I understand that stopped down, all of these lenses are capable of good sharpness. However, flare suppression may not be equal, and this is important to me. I have never used any of the canon wide angle zooms and I don't know anyone from whom I could borrow them. Common sense tells me that the primes should do much better in terms of flare. Users seem to say otherwise. People always complain about flare with EF primes, and not so much with the L zooms. You can even see this on the photozone ratings. Is this true or is this simply "L series love". Are the 17- 35L and 20-35L zooms really better at suppressing flare than EF prime wide angles? What about the 28-70L at the wide end? Please answer this question only if you've used primes and zooms and have taken pictures with the sun in the frame. Thanks. Josh * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
