Canon 20mm f2.8 versus Canon 17-35 f2.8?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

Thanks to all the replys on the 28-70 2.8 versus the 28-135 IS question I had. Your responses and the MTF results on Photodo along with talking to a couple of guys who had the 28-135 IS and reading the test results in Practical Photography convinced me to buy the IS lens (it tested quite high for a consumer lens and the focal length range allows me to carry my camera with me all the time with only one lens. The 70-200mm f2.8 is quite the beast to use as an everyday walk around lens although some days the mood strikes me to have that lens as my one and only). Now I'm looking for something wider to fill my quiver. I have the 22-55 but it's build quality is pretty cheesy and the MTF is very low. I'm looking at either the 17-35 f2.8 Canon or 20mm f2.8 Canon. I was wondering if there would be less barrel distortion, less vignetting and higher quality in the 20mm lens over the 17-35. I like the size and price of the 20mm but love the versatility of zoom lenses. Is a zoom lens really important at the wide end? Any advice would be much appreciated.

-- David hickey (fido@home.com), August 06, 1999

Answers

the 20 will have less distortion, and higher quality (contrast and sharpness) at 20mm then the zoom. I cant comment about vignetting.

Having always been a believer in primes, I have to admit that since using the 20-35 L, I dont carry my wide primes any more. I am quite happy with it. You would notice more distortion in the 17-35 if you have been using the 20, but its still quite good. I will also admit that there are times when I am at 20 and would really like to be able to get to 17.

-- C Terry (yeti-man@webtv.net), August 07, 1999.


I would go with the 20-35L. Do you really need 17mm? If you can suffer through 3mm, then you will very pleased with Canon,s L glass. It is simply the best IMHO!!

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), August 08, 1999.

The 17-35L produces very contrasty pictures so unlike C Terry I doubt that you'd gain something with the 20/2.8 in this respect. The fix-focal may be sharper though - I haven't seen enough pictures from this lens to provide a comment here. For me the 17-35L is "sharp enough" though. Another nice thing about this zoom is that it is quite resistent to flare. Distortions at 17mm are a bit hefty as well as vignetting when used wide open here. If you're on a budget the old 20-35L would be a very good choice as well I think.

-- Klaus Schroiff (kschroiff@baunetz.de), August 09, 1999.

For What it's worth, here's an image taken with the 17-35 @17

-- Mike Milton (Mike@arttech.on.ca), August 09, 1999.

oops, hrers the link: http://www.arttech.on.ca/earth.htm

For What it's worth, here's an image taken with the 17-35 @17

-- Mike Milton (Mike@arttech.on.ca), August 09, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ