> > > [...] > > >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. > > I'm considering a wide-angle prime, especially the EF 20 2.8 mentioned. > However, I came across a "review" on > http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_others.html. I'd like to know > what people > think of this. > > > - Marius
Hi Marius, The EF 20 2.8USM is not perfect but it's much better than the review would lead you to believe, especially when compared to the EF 17-35 2.8L which he rates with the same number. His results definitely do not match up with my own experience with the EF 20 2.8USM. The none of the Canon zooms considered here EF 20-35 2.8L, EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM and EF 17-35 2.8L are any kind of match for the Canon 20mm prime. The EF 20 2.8USM is clearly sharper and with better contrast across the board when compared with any of these zooms at 20mm. I have seen no chromatic aberrations on chromes taken with the EF 20 2.8USM but have seen this with the EF 17-35 2.8L (but it's MUCH less than is visible than film taken with an EF 28-105USM), and to a much lesser degree the EF 20-35USM. BTW, there are third party lenses like Sigma's 17-35 2.8 but I don't have first hand experience with it though there have been some reports that it's not too far behind optically, the Canon EF 17-35 2.8L, which IMO for an "L" class lens is pretty poor. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
