> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vesa Perala
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EOS Wide angles... keep EF24/2.8 or not?
>
>
> Like several others I have been trying to decide which wide
> angle lens to get: (EF20mm,) EF20-35 USM or EF17-35/2.8L.
> I already have the EF24/2.8 and some 28-xx zooms (and 35/2).
>
> My *last* decision was to get the 17-35 (second hand) but for
> it I should perhaps sell my 24/2.8. I like the 24/2.8. It has
> good quality even at f2.8 and compared to zooms the 0.25m
> closest focusing distance is a benefit (e.g. nature closeups).
> Also the weight and size are bonuses. Flare?
>
> Has anyone traded the EF24/2.8 to either of these zooms?
> If so do you miss it?
>
> Would you think I could shoot the zooms wide open (at least in
> the 24-35mm range) without feeling sorry afterwards?
>
> I have once tested the EF17-35/2.8L (handheld, three shots only)
> and the results at 17 and 24mm look surprisingly good with a loupe
> (ISO100 slide film). The 35mm shot was blurry so can't judge that
> one, but still I believe EF17-35 would be good enough for me.
>
> In addition to nature shots I like to shoot mostly (including
> family pictures) without a flash so performance wide open is
> somewhat important in low light.
>
> For some reason I'm not really considering the non-Canons nor the
> older EF20-35 L lens.
>
> Or maybe I could keep the 24/2.8 and *still* get the 17-35.... but
> why would I keep the 24/2.8 then...? Sigh.
>
> Vesa
Hi Vesa
What kind of subjects do you like to shoot with short lenses? This is what
you need to ask yourself. If you like to shoot images that look
contemporary and do long wide scenics etc. a 20mm or 14mm prime may fill out
your lens needs better than the EF 17-35 2.8L zoom. The Canon EF primes
have much lower distortion levels and are sharper and have better contrast
than the zooms even an L zoom. But you probably already know this as you
have EF 24mm and EF 35mm lenses, why not get the EF 20 2.8USM prime and have
the best of the short primes? You can save your zooms for casual shooting
where the barrel distortion at the short end will not be an issue.
The EF 17-35 2.8L is really a fantastic lens, relatively fast with a the
wonderfully wide 17mm (well almost), focal length at the short end. But all
this goodness comes at a price, significant barrel distortion, some
vignetting (light fall off in the corners, make the darkening in corners of
images), a large amount of bulk, high weight and relatively high cost.
Additionally this zoom cannot really take full advantage of it's short end
in terms of potential subject impact because the EF 17-35 2.8L cannot focus
as close as the primes.
For many subjects the distortion of the EF 17-35 2.8L may not be an issue
but for any images with straight lines that carry to the edges and/or
corners look out!!! With the EF 14 2.8L or EF 20 2.8USM this type of
distortion is much less an issue and hence are much less limiting in this
way though with the EF 14 2.8L there is a tendency for round objects to
stretch slightly towards oval. Light fall off is less an issue with the
primes mentioned as they are both quite compact and light when compared to
the EF 17-25 2.8L. Ahh, cost is an issue with the EF 14 2.8L as it runs
about 50% more the an EF 17-35 2.8L but what a lens the EF 14 2.8L is!
Minimal distortion and a very close focusing distance allow complete freedom
in terms of what and how you can shoot compared to an EF 17-35 2.8L.
Shooting with this lens indoors or out is amazing with straight lines all
the way out to the corners and with it's close focusing distance when used
on a tripod the DOF and clarity of the EF 14 2.8L can create very high
impact images. While the EF 20 2.8USM is not nearly as wide as the EF 14
2.8L it can also produce stunning images for all of the same reasons as the
EF 14 2.8L. Close focusing, sharp, high contrast amazing DOF with minimal
light fall off and at a VERY reasonable price.
If you must have a zoom you may want to consider the EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM
from Canon. This lens has about the same amount of barrel distortion and
vignetting though may be more prone to flare than the EF 17-35 2.8L. While
the EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM lens is slower it's just as sharp as the EF 17-35
2.8L but is less than half the cost!
Think about this, for less than the cost of an EF 17-35 2.8L you can own an
EF 20 2.8USM and an EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM. Most of the focal range of the EF
17-35 2.8L with the ultra close focusing distance and very low distortion of
the EF 20 2.8USM prime combined with less weight and volume at a lower
price!
This was my thinking and is why I have an EF 20 2.8USM and EF 20-35
3.5/4.5USM. This same thinking (rationalization?), is partially why I've
also got an EF 50 1.4USM, EF 85 1.8USM and EF 300 2.8L even though I have EF
28-70 2.8L and EF 70-200 2.8L zooms and eF 1.4X and EF 2X converters. I've
used the EF 14 2.8L quite a bit and as a consequence want one really,
really, badly! Ahh but for the cost issue...
Regards,
Chip Louie
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
