Hi, Well, you've gotten past the first step: Which focal length range to get. If you want a zoom, look at the 16-35/2.8 L or the 17-40/4 L. The two lenses perform very well. If you want primes, then you're kinda screwed... The word on the street about the 20mm is that it's rather horrible. The 14 (probably wider than you want) is supposedly good, as is the 24 (probably longer than you want). Other options include the Zeiss Distagon 18mm with a Contax-EOS adaptor. But at least I find using lenses with adaptors to be rather inconvenient.
If you don't want to spend too much and can live with f/4, go with the 17-40. Otherwise get the 16-35. Whether the 17-40 is as good as your 50/1.4 is a different question. How would you compare the two? Constant subject size? Constant subject-to-sensor distance? I just bought a used 50/1.4 and was blown away. I shot a brick wall from about 1m away. The image is sharp from corner to corner at f/5.6. I'm impressed. But then again, I've never shot a brick wall that close up with any of my other lenses, so I can't tell if it's exceptional or normal... I did once compare the 50/1.8 I (metal version), 24-70/2.8 @ 50, and a Zeiss 50/1.7. While there were differences between the three it was not possible to point at a "winner". But I only tested in one light condition and only two subjects. I suspect the Zeiss handles flare a bit better than the Canon glass. At least I've experienced flare from light bouncing off the inside of the lens hood with the 70-200/2.8 IS. I would shy away from the "consumer/kit" lenses like the 18-55. I'm not at all impressed with it. I guess for $100 it's not a terrible deal, but you get what you pay for. I shoot with the 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS, and 85/1.8. I've recently added 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 but haven't formed an opinion on those yet. The three zoom lenses are all awesome - especially the 70-200. The 24-70 is my main lens. I highly recommend all three zooms. The 85/1.8 is rather awesome as well. Tom On 5/15/05, Simon Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have recently purchased a 20D which I love to use. Before that I was using > a EOS30. The lens I own are 50mm f1.4 USM, 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II USM, and the > 70-300 f4-5.6 III USM. > > I like the look of the 17-40 L > which I see a lot of people use and was wondering how the optics compare to > my 50? I know its not as fast as the 50 but with it being an L it should be > clearer, right? > > Also there is the new EF-S 17-85 4-5.6 IS which again isn't as quick as the > 28-105 nor the 50 but its an option. I guess is equivalent to the 28-135 IS > USM lens from 35mm days. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
