Canon 20-35L vs. 20-35 USM esthetics

I am stuck on a decision between purchasing a used Canon 20-35 f/2.8L

or a new Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM. I am leaning toward the "L".

However, I have heard numerous times that the 20-35 USM is every bit

as good stopped down and I have also seen a number of pros carrying

the USM model. I would appreciate subjective opinions from the point

of view of esthetics. I am an artist and am concerned as much with

the "look" a lens renders as much as I am with lines/mm. Keep in mind

I tend to like certain qualities of good older glass. I would highly

appreciate advice from people that have hands on experience with

both. I already have primes in this range, so please offer advice on

the wide angle zooms in question only. Thanks in advance!

Hmm... if you, as you say, are "an artist" and much concerned with the look a lens renders, why do you ask random people on the web about their opinion? Their criteria and tastes are likely to be much different from yours...

Because I'm normal? Who the ___ are you?

LOL. "You call me a freak as if it were a bad thing..."

 

And you are normal? Sorry, accept my condolences ;-)

Well then head on over to the circus freak forum and leave me alone.

I have the non-L lens. Most of the work done with the lens is indoor, with a flash, so I'm wanting to keep the shutter speed fairly slow so as not to wash out the image with flash gun and darkness elsewhere. I'd imagine that making the most of the wider apature would include going quicker and I myself wouldn't find that of benefit.

 

I've no real comparative experience in natural light.