You two guys are making life impossible for me!!!
I had decided to go for the 20/2.8 and there you are convincing me that I
should get the 20-35/3.5-4.5.
I had decided for the 20/2.8 because of its closer focusing, at 9.5 inches
instead of 13 inches for the 20-35 lens, which gives twice the
magnification at 20mm, something like 0.13 instead of 0.07.
I had figured that this would be useful if I want to make a picture of,
let's say, a flower at 9.5 inches with a mountain in the background...
extreme pictures... but will I want to focus often at 9.5 inches from the
glass? Can I use a low power close-up lens on a 20-35 lens?
And I will also use the lens for travel photos, like in NYC or Paris where
the zoom lens would probably be more useful than the 20/2.8 lens. I guess
it's hard to move forward or backwards from the top of the Empire State or
the World Trade Center or the Eiffel Tower...
Are there any advantages left for the 20/2.8?
Pierre
At 15:40 3/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Julian Loke wrote:
>
> > I went shopping, and ... came home with a Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom
> >
> > Common negative points
> > 1) 5 bladed diaphragm. Pentagonal bokeh, ugghh...
>
>In practice I don't think this is a problem. Personally, when using this lens
>I'm trying to keep the background in focus, not throw it out of focus.
>
> > 2) Hood not included
>
>You would have paid for it one way or the other. :-)
>
> > 3) Hey, I thought there were 20 million EF lenses ever made.
> > So, how come there are so few used EF 20 and EF 20-35's?
>
>People who own them like them? I know I like my 20-35--one of two non-"L" EF
>lenses I have. Yes, under test conditions there is perimeter distortion
>and all
>that, but in everyday use you probably won't notice; similarly, in
>everyday use
>it is plenty sharp. Also, it doesn't vignette at 20mm even with a standard
>(i.e.
>thick) B+W filter attached.
>
> > The zooming aspect became relatively important, especially for
> > travelling in Europe with two young children.
>
>Yes; IMO a fixed 20mm lens comes very close to being a specialized lens--the
>20-35 zoom is far more versatile.
>
> > Does this mean that "infinite DOF" scenics need to be composed so
> > that "everything" lies between 0.5m to infinity?
>
>Yes. However, it is ok to let the far distance go somewhat soft--this is
>how we
>see the world anyway: when our eyes are focused on a close object, distant
>objects are not in sharp focus. In a photograph, because it is a flat object,
>our eyes can focus on the foreground and background at the same time. But
>because the objects in the distance are both "far away" and small on the
>film, a
>little softness there will probably not matter--indeed, this is how DOF works
>anyway, since there is only one plane of true focus in any photograph--our
>brain
>makes certain adjustments. In a sense, DOF is a "psycho-optical" phenomenon
>similar to the way we see snow (for example) as "white" even when the existing
>light makes it in actuality orange or blue. We see it as white because we know
>snow is white; similarly, if the background in your photo is sufficiently
>sharp
>we perceive it as sharp although in actuality it is not really in focus. The
>most important thing with a wide-angle (as a general rule) is that the
>foreground be in focus, since that's where the viewer's eye will go first and
>any lack of sharpness there will be immediately apparent and distracting. This
>is part of the reason why a wide-angle photo generally needs a strong
>foreground
>subject to be effective.
>
> > Does this mean that focussing closer blur distant objects?
>
>Yes. You can compensate for this somewhat by "eyeballing" depth of field. With
>your lens reasonably stopped down--say f/8 or f/11--the plane of focus will
>occur roughly 1/3 of the way into the region of apparent focus. So, if you
>focus
>on those rocks in the foreground, apparent focus will extend some distance in
>front of the rocks (and twice as far behind). If the rocks happen to be the
>closest objects that need to be in focus, you can focus on a point a bit
>behind
>them in order to increase the sharpness of the background without losing
>apparent sharpness for the rocks. This is easier to do than to explain,
>and with
>a bit of practice it can become rather automatic. When shooting landscapes, I
>rarely focus on the main subject, but rather pick a point that will give
>me the
>region of apparent focus that I want, and then reframe the photo as necessary
>(BTW, this is one reason I almost always use a single, manually-selected focus
>point). Don't get too worked up over this--the perceived depth of field
>you can
>achieve in a photo depends not only on the capability of your lens but also on
>the resolving power of your film, the sharpness of the enlarging lens (if
>we're
>talking about prints), and the resolving power of the print paper. The
>paper, or
>course, is the weakest link here, and beyond a certain point the
>background just
>isn't going to look any sharper, no matter where in the field of view you've
>focused. So concentrate on keeping the foreground sharp (and interesting).
>
> > Another reason for choosing the zoom is the ability to crop the
> > unwanted detail out of the picture. Details like my shoes, tripod
> > legs, camera bag, power lines, sun, etc :-)
>
>Lol! A remote release is good for this.
>
> > The filter situation bothered me more. A good solution would be to
> > have drop-in rear filters, like the EF 17-35 L.
>
>I'm not convinced that gelatin filters are an advantage. :-)
>
> > Another method is
> > to forego filters altogether and buy a rangefinder with a Zeiss
> > 16mm Hologon or 21mm Biogon or even a Voigtländer 12mm or 15mm
> > Heliar. Those solutions are not in my current budget :-)
>
>Those Bessa Rs have been flying out of my local camera shop! (Seriously.)
>
> > In order to use my existing 72mm filters, I could either buy the
> > EF 20mm or search for a used discontinued (non USM) EF 20-35 L in
> > good condition. (KEH has some battered ones on their website).
>
>For the extra cost of one of those battered L lenses, wouldn't it be just as
>well to bite the bullet for a couple 77mm filters? I know that monetary
>considerations affect most of us (including myself), but should filter
>size be a
>determining factor when choosing a lens, if you're serious about your
>photography? In any case, you will have noticed that the front element of the
>20-35/3.5~4.5 seems pretty vulnerable, even with the hood attached. All you
>really need is a skylight and a polarizer--not cheap I know if you get good
>ones, but IMO worth it in the long run. And if you ever decide to spring for a
>28-70L, they'll fit that too!
>
> > However, since I also have Cokin P filters (83 to 85mm in size), I was
> > equally happy to use the Cokin CPOL and Grad NDs. There are many reports
> > of vignetting with Cokin P and super-wide angle lenses in the archives.
>
>Also, neither of these are true neutral filters--both are gray, and add a
>color
>cast to your photos. In any case, Cokin has introduced a new "pro" line of
>holders and filters that are larger than the "P" series, but at a
>significantly
>higher cost--possibly not much less than the HiTech stuff. For what it's
>worth,
>I have a Cokin "P" holder and a couple graduated ND filters, but I've
>never used
>them on the 20-35--they work fine on the 28-70L though!
>
> > Would it help to just hold the filters by hand in front of the lens?
>
>More trouble than it's worth?
>
>fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
