Vincent,
The 20-35 2.8 is a great lens. I use one on a daily basis and really could not live without it. I know it to be a fact that I have made pictures with the 20-35 that I would not have otherwise with the 4 primes that the zoom covers. How is that you might ask? The 20-35 frees me up to compose and shoot rather than to be constantly replacing lenses as the subject dictates. I would recommend this lens to any professional or amateur who finds themselves shooting in rapidly changing situations. This is the lens that nine times out of ten will help you get the killer image.
Now, with all that said, here are some reasons for going with primes instead. First and foremost, the 20-35 is ridiculously expensive. The going price is about $1600 GRAY (!) and that is if you can find one. The lens is not AF-S and lacks the 3mm's more coverage that the other brand offers for less $. The lens' minimum focusing distance is about 2 feet which I find to be unacceptable. Because of this, I still own a 28mm 2.8 for those situations where I need to get a little more intimate than two and half feet. Another reason to consider is that many of the Nikon AIS primes come in apertures faster than 2.8 - and not for a heck of a lot more money than the f2.8's, i.e. 35 f1.4, 28 f2, 24 f2. The exception is the pricey 28 f1.4 but it's almost worth the extra money. The last reason I would give is this: the 20-35 promotes visual laziness at times. I have found several instances when looking at my take where I should have stepped closer with the lens at 24mm than just zooming to 35mm. It's incredible how much differently I'll shoot with just my 28mm or my 35 on my Leica. It's sometimes better to be really looking rather than zooming.
Good luck with your decision,
Bob Croslin
Staff Photographer, The Tampa Tribune
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 20-35 2.8D Vincent Huang
- Bob Croslin
