At 11:07 PM 5/27/2003, Chip Louie asked: >You got a refurbed EF 16-35 2.8L? Was it a Canon refurb?
Yes it was a Canon refurb from a highly respected NYC dealer. I don't often put much credibility on the equipment rants I see on dpreview but the 16-35 has been getting discussed there as having 'uneven' quality with regards to image sharpness when used on Canon 10D cameras. Go figure, JimD
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of JimD > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: EOS 20mm f2.8 vs 17-35 2.8L @ 20mm? > > > At 10:03 PM 5/25/2003, Chip Louie wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of JimD > > > Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 4:03 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: EOS 20mm f2.8 vs 17-35 2.8L @ 20mm? > > > > > > <<SNIPPED>> > > > > > >Hi Jim, > > > >Yes the EF 20 2.8USM has less linear distortion and the prime is > also much > >sharper overall corner to corner then the EF 17-35 2.8L. This > is based on > >my experience on film, I doubt it will be much different on a > digital body > >though I do think the differences will be more apparent on the digital > >bodies. I don't have the EF 17-35 2.8L or EF 20 2.8USM lenses > any more so > >cannot confirm this thought but the EF 16-35 2.8L is somewhat better then > >the EF 17-35 2.8L on my EOS 1D body. > > > > > >Cheers/Chip > Chip, > Does the 16-35 take the place of the 20mm F2.8? > That is, at 20mm how does the 16-35 compare to the 20mm F2.8? > > I'm in this quandary as I got a refurbished 16-35 but it compares > poorly to my 17-35 in the brick wall/ sheet of newspaper tests > I've shot. I'll return the refurb this week. > > Now I'm pondering if I should keep my 17-35 and > get the 20mm F2.8 or if I should go whole hog and spring > for a new 16-35. Generally I've been satisfied with the 17-35. > I don't love it the way I do my 28-70 F2.8 L though. Unfortunately > I'm pretty fond of wide angles so the 28-70 is a bit long with > the D60 so the 28-70 sits home alot these days. > > Thanks, > JimD > >
Hi Jim,
For my use the EF 16-35 2.8L replaces the EF 20 2.8USM. But the 20mm was a better lens for the things that I wanted the 20mm for. My own EF 16-35 2.8L seems to be a good one, images are sharper overall when compared to the EF 17-35 2.8L. This seems to be in line with what other people are finding also.
You got a refurbed EF 16-35 2.8L? Was it a Canon refurb? Hmm, My 17-35 2.8L was a fairly good lens, not great but pretty good and I used it a lot on film. My 16-35 2.8L is MUCH better under all lighting situations and any focal length vs. my 17-35 2.8L.
I almost made the same decision, keep the EF 17-35 2.8L AND the EF 20 2.8USM but when I went digital I wanted to simplify my bag. So I sold almost all of my glass (EF 2X, EF 20 2.8USM, EF 17-35 2.8L, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF 135 2L, EF 300 2.8L), and reloaded it with new 16-35 2.8L and EF 70-200 2.8L IS lenses. I kept the EF 1.4X, EF 28-70 2.8L, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM, EF 50 1.4USM and EF 85 1.8USM lenses. But now I find that I'm missing the EF 2X I sold and want a 14mm to round out my quiver. BTW all of these lens decisions were based on using them on an EOS 1D size or larger sensor.
Anyway If you do a lot of interiors or architecture the 20mm prime it may pay to keep the EF 17-35 2.8L and buy a nice used EF 20 2.8USM. But the 20mm is really too long now with a D30/D60/10D body, this is how I wound up buying an EF 16-35 2.8L, for the short end and the overall improvement I expected to see.
I hope this helps some.
Cheers/Chip
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
