Well said, Chip!
I too had to get a 2nd lens to cover the wide angle after my 70-200mm f/2.8L and I really really wanted to get something that had just as good quality. The 17-35mm f/2.8L did not possess the sort of photodo rating that I expected it to, and the 20-25mm f/3.5-4.5 seemd to have all the goods, except for the L tag. While the USM is slower, I didn't mind since this was a wide angle zoom. It didn't have a barrel that telescopes in and out so dust ingress wasn't going to be a problem, had a 77mm filter so I could keep one set of filters, and the photodo rating seemed pretty good. Also I didn't need anything wider than 20mm. It seems criminal that the 28-70mm f/2.8L has a barrel that telescopes from the body. I hope Canon refreshes this lens to make it all "in body". When they do that, I'll join the queue and put my money down for one of these puppies. Then the hole in my range will be filled. Regards, Lawrance ----Original Message Follows---- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 09:59:50 -0800 From: Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: EOS which wide prime? Hey All, I had a similar problem while trying to come up with a bag of glass. I already had the EF 28-70 2.8L, EF 70-200 2.8L zooms and was almost seduced by the (at that time new), EF 17-35 2.8L zoom. But I had heard and read that the EF 20-35 2.8L was just as good if not better optically and that the EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM was right in there too. So, I rented, borrowed, shot and tested the EF 20-35 2.8L, EF 17-35 2.8 L and EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM lenses over a period of several weeks before I bought a wide angle zoom. In the end I bought the EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM. It's IMO a MUCH better overall lens than either of the short L zooms. The EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM seems sharper overall than the EF 17-35 2.8L and it's most certainly much smaller, lighter and less expensive to boot. The EF 17-35 while noticeably wider at the 17mm end also has noticeably more linear distortion and does not seem as sharp beyond the central third of the image then the EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM lens. But it does perform slightly better in terms of vignetting, maybe by a 1/3 or 1/2 stop in the corners. The EF 20-35 2.8L may actually be the best compromise optically between the bunch but it's much slower focusing speed put me off. I came to the conclusion that for the money I wanted the apparently sharper overall image of the EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM and the lower linear distortion of the EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM. If paired with an EF 20 2.8USM for its' very low linear distortion, and lower light loss in the corners I have the short end pretty well covered. Regards, Chip Louie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
