I'm looking at purchasing a wide angle EOS lense in the 20-35mm range. I'm only interested in the 20mm 2.8, 20-35mm 2.8L (used), or the 20-35mm 3.5-4.5. Could someone inform me of their experience with these lenses? I'd like to know especially about the Optical Quality of the glass (resolving power, distortion, natural color tones, and sharpness). On Optical quality alone, which one of these should i be aiming to purchase? Thanks.

-- Ed Dods (Edods@ureach.com), June 29, 2001

Answers

It really depends on how deep your pockets are. The 20-35mm L is probably the most expensive next would be the 20 mm and then the other 20-35. I have the 20-35 non L, and I like it very much. Most times I use it for newspaper stuff and intentionally emphasize the wide angle capability of the lens. If I had the bucks I would probably get the straight 20, but that's cause I'm old school and still like prime glass.

Marcus J.

-- Marcus J. Wilson Sr. (marcus.wilson@dtra.mil), June 29, 2001.

I've owned both the 20 and the 20-35/3.5-4.5. I liked both, and couldn't really tell a difference in the photos they produced, although I did not do any critical testing. I stuck with the 20- 35/3.5-4.5 because speed was not a critical factor, the price is right, the zoom is really versatile, and it uses the same filter size, 77mm, as my 70-200.

-- AC Gordon (cliffdeb@ciris.net), June 30, 2001.

I'd owned the 20mm 2.8 USM lens for a year now. Had taken it for trips to Mexico & India. I use it for both landscape & perspective distortion shots. The extra stops are essential since I always add polarizer filter to enhance the colour saturation & contrast while shooting. Very good image quality and it's compact too. It was my first Prime lens (i was using zoom lenses all along) and it really changes my future lens choices as now I only go for Prime lens with 2.8 f/stop.

-- Eric Tan (erictanch@pacific.net.sg), July 19, 2001.