I'm interested in getting a super wide-angle zoom (mostly for landscapes) for my Canon EOS Elan 7e. I cannot afford the Canon "L" pro lenses (nor do I need a fast lens for landscapes). I'll be attaching a thin circular polarizer filter (so non-rotating & internal focusing would be nice). I am trying to compare the following lenses: - Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.6 USM lens (about $419 at B&H, 77mm) - Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 HSM (about the same price, 82mm) - Tamron 20-40 f/2.7-3.5 (more expensive - $600 range, 77mm) - Tokina 20-35 f/2.8 ATX Pro (again, $600 range, 77mm) BUT, then I saw the Tokina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 for around $200 (77mm). I can't believe the price! If it performs as well as the other slower zooms, I'll take my savings and invest in a better tripod. Has anyone used/compared these lenses? Thanks in advance.

-- (icul8rg8r@yahoo.com), January 03, 2002

Answers

Have you ever looked at Klaus Schroiff's analysis of magazine lens test results? He averages out the overall assessment of a lens's quality from test reports in photographic magazines, and publishes the results as a league table in

http://www.photozone.de/

Now it is something of an oversimplification to reduce the quality of a lens to a single number -- and I'm sure that Klauss realizes this -- but these tables are always interesting and usually useful.

In the case of wideangle zooms, the table confirms what many people would have expected:

• The only lenses classified "good" are f/2.8 zooms from Canon and Nikon.
• The only lenses classified "sub-average" are the old 19-35 from Tokina and the inexpensive 19-35 from Cosina.
• The four lenses in your main comparison are all classified "average" (and "average" in no way means "bad" -- this is engineering not politics). Of the four, the Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM has the highest score.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), January 04, 2002.

Amateur Photographer, a magazine in the UK, did a round-up of these lenses in june. Their three winning lenses were the Nikon 18-35 ED (obviously not an option), the Tokina 19-35 F3.5-4.5 and the Tokina 20-35 F2.8 ATX Pro. By their reckoning, the Canon is better than the cheaper Tokina, but not as good as the more expensive one, but runs close. Make sure the lens is compatible, then it would seem that the Tokina is the obvious choice.

Except....I am through with third-party lenses. I have always found I end up happier with a manufacturer's own lenses, and would steer you towards the Canon for this. My father owns one, and it's a good lens. That would be my pick.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 06, 2002.

I would take the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. It will work fine for what you want. I have the older Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5. It is a fine performer. The new version is lighter and less costly.

Like you say, take your savings and invest in a better tripod.

-- Marc Bergman (mbergma2@ix.netcom.com), January 07, 2002.

I had the same fears:-) Nikon 18-35 vs. Cosina 19-35 for my F90x! I went for the Cosina, thinking that I can afford to "throw away" 200 euros if it is a lame and buy the 18-35 Nikon! Surprise surprise! After 5 rolls of test shooting I found out that the "little" Cosina is an excellent performer and an excellent value for money! At 20x25 or 20x30 prints from a 100/200/400 ISO neg film, everything looks great! Now if you take a loupe, well, I don't know:-) regards Kostas

PS As I am not following this group, I would not be able to read any answers:-( If someone wants further info, please e-mail me.

-- gogu (golanule@yahoo.com), January 29, 2002.