[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
Of the zooms you mention, I own the 20-35L and I have taken pictures
with it that include the sun in the frame. You definitely get some flare
and aperture ghosting with this one. There is some reduction of
contrast, but it's less than I had expected. Unfortunately, I don't have
any similar pics taken with my 20 and 24mm primes to compare with. I can
offer to scan the pics when I get back to my scanner next week, though
and make them available somewhere on the web. That might give you a
better impression of what to expect. As another hint, I found my 28-105
zoom has A LOT more flare than the 20-35L. From all that I've heard, the
20-35 non-L is quite flare prone, but I have never tried this lens
myself.
> 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.
Corner sharpness is sure not one of the strengths of the 20-35L, even
stopped down to f/8. The 20mm prime is a lot better in this respect.
> 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".
I guess these results are a mix of L series love and a lack of
comparison to the primes. OTOH, people buying and using primes tend to
have higher standards and expectations than people used to zooms.
> Are the 17-35L and 20-35L zooms really better at suppressing flare
> than EF prime
> wide angles?
As I said, I don't think so. They are better than the consumer zooms,
though.
> 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.
The 28-70L is a miraculous lens optically. But it is flare prone, a
cheapish 28mm f/2.8 is MUCH better in this respect.
I have used (and still use) primes and zooms and have taken pictures
with the sun in the frame. So I literally qualify, but I have to admit,
I haven't yet taken pics with my wide angle prime lenses with the sun in
the frame. ;-)
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
