Bob,
Thank you for your comments.
Short of buying both the 20/2.8 and the 20-35/3.5-4.5, which would be too
expensive and probably useless, I will have to decide someday soon...
I've changed my mind half a dozen times...
I've made (unconclusive) tests with both lenses; I'm now waiting for 8x12
prints made wide open and at f/8 with both of them.
Some tests found on the web (photodo, photozone, etc) show one as superior,
and other tests show the other one as superior... contrast and sharpness
wise. Chasseur d'Images says the 20/2.8 is the better one, which is only
logical, I guess. It's rated as Excellent while the 20-35 is rated as Very
Good.
However, I'm starting to think that the 20-35 is probably much more
flexible for travel photos, which is what I'll do the most with it. I often
have 8x12s made from my photos, and sometimes 11x16, but not much bigger.
I liked the close focusing of the 20/2.8 a lot... but would I use it often
at 9.5 inches instead of 13 inches?
Since you have the 20/2.8, what do you feel are its advantages over the
20-35/3.5-4.5?
I'll eventually get to decide; proof is I ordered a 100-400 IS L lens this
afternoon.
Pierre
At 22:30 3/4/2001 +0000, you wrote:
><<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.>>
>
>
>The problem with taking anyone's advise for anything is that
>ultimately it is your decision.
>
>I let myself be pursuaded early on to buy some after-market lenses
>(well, they were cheaper) but principally they were given "lens of the
>year" status and there were those extolling thier virtue on line.
>
>Guess what: they were crap (comparatively).
>You don't know what anyone means by sharp till you have seen thier
>work. When someone says (no vignetting) do you know whether they are
>talking about full frame of the middle 70% (utilised by D&P printing
>of negative).
>
>
>But before you part with money I hope you decide what it is YOU want
>to do with the lens. That in essence dictates which you should go
>for.
>
>
>BobT
>
>
>I got the 20mm: why? It was more expensive than the 20-35. Dumb?
>Maybe but it was one of those "buy the body and get a lens" offers
>;o)
>I have not regretted it. It does vignette a bit wide open. I would
>wager a LOT of money that the 20-35 does too. Depends how you define
>vignette I guess.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
