20-35 f/3.5-4.5 vs 17-40 L f/4

I currently own the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 lens and I shoot with an Elan

7N. I have gotten absoutely wonderful results with this lens. I

shoot mostly scenics, and I use exclusively velvia 50, shoot from a

sturdy manfrotto, use a cable release and mirror lockup. I have been

looking into purchasing the 17-40 f4 L to replace it. The broader

focal range is a big plus, on both ends. But I'm not sure if the

price~$650, is worth getting rid of my old lens. Will I get a

noticable difference in sharpness, contrast, and overall quality by

upgrading, or just a little larger focal length range? I've even

read some postings that the 20-35 outperforms the 17-40. Help?

rent one.

I owned the 20-35 for 6 years and the 17-40 for about 1 year. The 17-40 is sharper wide open, but I doubt there is much difference shooting both at f8. I was very happy with the 20-35, and doubt I would have bought the 17-40 if not for the 1.6x crop on my D60, which sort of cries out for a wider glass (not that 17mm is all that wide). The 17-40 is also larger and heavier.

My 20-35 has given me excellent results all the time. I got it second hand, and at at small fraction of the price I'd have paid for a 17-40L. Frankly, unless I'm making 11x16" prints on a regular basis, I'd stick with the 20-35. It's a great lens for the price.

 

The 20 is w-i-d-e on a film camera, unlike a 1.6x DSLR where it is a crippled boring 32mm medium wide.

"The 20 is w-i-d-e on a film camera, unlike a 1.6x DSLR where it is a crippled boring

32mm medium wide."

 

The lens can not not "force" an image into a state of boredom. The lens is merely a tool.

The photographer is responsible for creating an engaging image. A 32mm is no more

boring than a 300mm. If there is a handicap or "crippling effect, it is due to the poor vision

behind the lens, not the lens itself. Nevertheless, some of the greatest images of all time

were made with 35mm lenses.

As far as I see the major difference is the 17mm FoV which is much larger than the 20mm FoV.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

No offense Puppy Face, but this is from your very own review of the 17-40L on your webpage;

 

<p><i>This is an incredible ultra wide zoom on my EOS 3 but a real yawn on my EOS 10D. Why? The 10D's cropping factor essentially makes it into a 27-64 zoom. Boring. </i>

I agree with the above posts. The 17-40 f/4 is a great lens and objectively better than the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 (I posted an informal comparison in http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Bxpr). However, if you already have the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, I think you should switch only if you need the extra width and print large. The 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, like the 50 f/1.8 is one of the better value lens in the Canon stable.

Having upgraded from the 20-35 to the 17-40 myself I would say that if you need the extra 3mm on the wide end and or need sharper wide open performance than go for it. It sounds as though you tend to shoot mostly scenics and therefore likely shoot stopped down in the f/8 to f/16 range so I do not think the gains in wide open performance will be of any benefit to you. In that case you will mainly be gaining the extra 3mm on the wide end. Your choice.

IMO, much difference between them. 17-40 will give you better pics (sharpness, contrast, color).