> > Hi, > > I wanted to buy the Canon 20-35 USM. But since prices in the USA are > much lower than in Europe I'm thinking about purchasing a Canon (16)17- > 35 f/2.8L AF at B&H. > > I will be shooting mainly landscapes with this lens. Is it worth > upgrading from 20-35 to 17-35; is the 17-35 above 20 mm optical much > better than the 20-35 usm? > > Is it worth upgrading from Canon 17-35 to 16-35 pure for optics (my > body is not dust resistance) > > Thanks > Mark
Hi Mark, If you can only have one lens to cover the short focal length ranges here's my take on this question. I'm currently using an EF 17-35 2.8L but had an EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM for several years and have also used an EF 20-35 2.8L quite a bit. Since AF speed is not really an issue for your landscape shots I'd seriously recommend the older EF 20-35 2.8L unless you will need the faster AF of a USM lens. My thinking is that of these 3 Canon wide zooms optically, the EF 20-35 2.8L is the sharpest with the most contrast and they are getting very inexpensive due to the release of the EF 16-35 2.8L. My second choice would be the EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM. This lens is the best bargain of the lot, MUCH smaller and lighter then any of the other Canon wide zooms. It does have a ring USM motor and optically it's just a smidge behind the EF 20-35 2.8L but of course it's not as fast a lens, which if you are really doing landscapes is not an issue. Last is the EF 17-35 2.8L, why? Size, cost, weight, optical performance is simply just not as good overall as either of the Canon 20-35 lenses and it also has the highest linear distortion of these three short zooms. Knowing this if you were to stretch all the way I'd probably wait and buy an EF 16-35 2.8L. This new lens by most accounts is sharper than the EF 17-35 2.8L and has lower distortion too. It's physically longer and is more expensive but this is THE class leading lens and will have a long life, especially if you eventually go digital. Or you could do what a lot of people do and buy a 17-35 2.8L for its' wide-angle view and accept a lower contrast image with more distortion and at some point later buy an EF 20 2.8 prime for ultra-low distortion and high contrast. Together, this pair of lenses used are available for $1,000, a LOT less than the EF 16-35 2.8L will be going for a long time! A new EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM is about $420, a used EF 20-35 2.8L complete in EX-MINT condition is about $500-$600, a used EF 17-35 2.8L in EX-MINT condition, about $700-$800. For the money the EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM is the clear winner but the EF 20-35 2.8L is a better lens optically and mechanically for only a slight bump in price. Hope this didn't add too much to the confusion. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
