> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex
> Zabrovsky
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:07 AM
> To: EOS list
> Subject: EOS Canon wide angle zooms
>
>
> I have wide angle zoom on list for not so far future, however not very
> familiar with the offerings.
> I know there are 20-35/2.8L (discontinued), 17-35/L USM and 16-35/L USM.
> Photodo rates the first one (3.5) considerably higher then the second one
> (3.2) (no rating for 16-35). However they do not mention the
> 20-35 features
> USM (and thus FTM). Doesn't it have teh USM indeed ? I think given it is a
> USM lens I would go for one (don't care too much additional 3-4mm, 20mm is
> good enough for me), especially considering their affordability on Ebay.
> Also, the 17-35 showed considerable distortions on the wide end (-4.xx on
> Photodo).
> What about distortions issue with 20-35 ?
>
> Regards,
> Alex Z


Hi Alex,

The new EF 16-35 2.8L is a much sharper lens than the EF 17-35 2.8L it
replaced, about as good as maybe slightly better then the old EF 20-35 2.8L.
The old EF 20-35 2.8L lacked USM its only real weakness aside from a slight
tendency to vignette.

If cost is an issue, lens speed is not an issue, you plan to keep a film
body and a 20mm focal length on the short end is wide enough, you may want
to consider the EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM.  This excellent lens with very good,
solid image quality has noticeably lower linear distortion than the EF 17-35
2.8L.  It also has the advantage of not changing length as the lens is
zoomed.  I had one for many years before going to the EF 17-35 2.8L which is
clearly not as good a lens in terms of overall performance.

The new EF 16-35 2.8L seems to have resolved the EF 17-35 2.8L's optical
performance problems and is a stellar, modern ultra-wide zoom lens.  This
new lens has it all and is clearly a big upgrade from the EF 17-35 2.8L in
terms of optical performance.  The EF 16-35 2.8L is larger and is noticeably
bulky compared to the EF 17-35 2.8L but the extra bulk is well worth it if
you need a sharp moderate distortion 16mm lens.  The only other Canon
ultra-wide angle lens that can offer this level of performance is the EF 14
2.8L.


Cheers/Chip







*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

Reply via email to