Canon 20-35 f/2.8L vs. Canon 17-40 f/4L

I'm in search for a "wide" angle zoom for my drebel, and can't

decide between Canon's ancient 20-35 f/2.8 or the new 17-40 f/4 zoom

(both relatively in the same price range).

I really really really want the extra stop (and I wish I could

afford the 16-35 lens), but from what I read its autofocus is rather

slow. (Yes, USM is faster than no USM). Just how "bad" is its

autofocus? Keep in mind, that I likely won't need to hunt down

speedy football players or the like, thus blazing fast AF isn't

necessarily that important, but will it bog me down for PJ-type

work? (I don't really care too much about the minute differences in

the sharpness of either lens.)

 

I'd love to try each lens on for myself, but I can't find the 20-

35/2.8 zoom in my area (Wash DC), so I'd have to order it from KEH

or the like. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Eugene,</p>Of the two lenses you are looking at, I own only the 20-35 f/2.8 so I can't offer you a comparison, but I can tell you that this is my walkaround lens on my Canon 10D and I've never noticed any problems with autofocus speed. In fact, I have no complaints about this lens. Here's a sample photo taken with this combination. --Russ<div></div>

Unless you've eliminated it as a candidate for a reason, there's also Canon's discontinued <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/17-35">17-35/2.8L</a>. It tends to sell for about the same price as the other two you mention.

>> I really really really want the extra stop

 

I wonder why. I use the widest aperture quite often on my tele lenses but rarely on my wide ones. Me? I'd go for the 17-40/4. For me (YMMV) the wider focal range and faster AF speed (I really really really :-) miss that on my primes) are more important than the extra stop.

 

I had the 17-35/2.8 USM L but didn't like it. Sharpness was unacceptable below f/5.6. Flare was always a main concern (and yes, I used the lens hood at all times). Distortion was evident at 20mm and below. In addition, I used it almost exclusively in either 24mm or 35mm settings. Thus, I sold it and bought the 35/2 and 24/2.8 primes. Optically, they are far superior.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

I'd go for the newer design. AF is really good on the 17-40. I don't think 20mm is wide enough for a 1.6x body.

The extra 3mm does make a difference at the wide angle end, in my opinion. Optically, the 20-35 would be a great lens, but lately all the 20-35 f2.8 Canon lenses I've been seeing for sale have had problems- broken af/mf switches, lens scratches & worn exteriors, etc. Keep in mind in all likelyhood if the AF module goes out there are probably no replacements & most of the ones out there today have alot of mileage on them. If you can find a really clean one that was used by an amatuer you'll likely be OK, but they're not cheap on the second-hand market. Nice ones are probably close to $500. For not much more money you can get a new, current 17-40 f4L. I don't think you'll miss the f2.8 aperture that much with the Digital Rebel's clean noise patterns at the higher ISO settings.

I love my 17-40 but if you contemplate shooting architecture, or other things with straight

lines, you need to know that at the wide end especially it has some barrel distortion.

<p>I don't personally have much need for a fast wide lens, either - but on a 1.6x body, the 17-40 extends from wide through normal and slightly into medium tele, and I <em>do</em> see uses for fast normal and tele lenses. Particularly given <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html" target="_blank">the greater DOF on a 1.6x body</a>. So I can understand the desire for a faster lens.</p>

 

<p>I'd echo the comment about 20 not being wide enough. On your drebel, the 20-35 gives a 32mm equivalent at its wide end. That's not wide enough for me; is it wide enough for you? If not, it's pretty much ruled out, and you're left with the 17-40/4 (or, as someone else suggested, a used 17-35/2.8).</p>

Not to knock the 20-35mm f/2.8L, which is a very nice lens, but the non-L 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is one of Canon's better non-L lenses. It's got fast USM focusing and a non-rotating front element (convenient when using a polarizer) - I'm not sure the 20-35mm L can claim as much. Is nearly the L lens' equal when stopped down a little. And I not infrequently see them selling used, but in mint condition, for $225 or so. Heck, I bought mine not long ago in pristine condition, including the matched Canon lens hood (which is a big, clumsy thing, and only "matched" if one has the lens on a 35mm film EOS or a 24x36mm digital SLR, so I just use a cheap rubber lens hood), box, etc., for $225, inc. shipping.

 

Well, it's something you might want to consider, anyway.