EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM vs EF 20mm f/2.8 USM

[jason_eadie]

Hi, after much deliberation I decided I would enjoy the versatility of the Zoom. However, after renting a 20-35mm I was a bit disappointed with the way the image quality dropped off in the corners.

Am I expecting too much from a wide angle lens? Could it be a bad example? Will the corners be considerably shaper on the Prime?

Can anyone else who has gone through this dilemma offer some insight?

Jason.

[joseph_dickerson]

Jason,

 

<p>

 

I did some testing a while back for a book project and as you

discovered the 20-35 USM does not compare to the prime 20 mm. I felt

the 20-35 mm had too much barrel distortion for my needs but found the

17-35 mm f/2.8L to have less distortion than the 20-35 mm and it's

nearly as sharp as a prime lens. The 20 mm USM is more rectilinear

than either of the zooms however.

 

<p>

 

If you don't do much architecure either of the zooms will probably be

ok. I don't think you'll see much difference between them at f/8 or

f/11 but the "L" version is much better wide open.

[roberto_lins]

I have the 20 f/2.8 and have been happy. I also considered the zoom

initially and sometimes I actually miss it. For my stardards, the

corners are acceptable when the lens is wide open, but not ideal.

However, if you stop down to f/4 it becames great. I choosed the fixed

20 because of less barrel distortions, less prone to flare than the

20-35 and easier to use in low light conditions. I agree with the

previous post, if it's not meant for low light or architecure or if

you plan to use it especially for nature purposes, I'd go for the

zoom.

[jason_eadie]

Thanks for the feed back Guys, I appreciate it. Jason.

[bellavance]

I am in the process of deciding between the 20 f/2.8 and the 20-35

f/3.5-4.5, and I can't buy both lenses...

 

<p>

 

One thing I like from the 20mm is the close focus which would allow me

to make extreme travel pictures such as a flower patch from very close

in front of a mountain or a building.

 

<p>

 

The 20-35 does not have as much magnification at 20mm. To get the same

magnification, you have to shoot at 35mm, but you lose the effect of

the 20mm lens that gives a much wider view for the background, which I

find more impressive.

 

<p>

 

Have you traveled with the 20mm?

 

<p>

 

Would the 20-35 be better for travel pictures?

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

 

<p>

 

Pierre

[bellavance]

I should have added to my previous message that I have the 28-135 IS

Zoom Lens.

 

<p>

 

Pierre

[jimdavis]

I also deliberated much on the prime 20mm or the 20-35 zoom. I've

never regretted getting the zoom. I find I have to disagree about

corner sharpness. I'm very pleased with sharpness of this lens,

especially at the corners. I have taken pictures in low light and

daylight, many of them wide open at 20mm. I can't see any appreciable

falloff of sharpness in the extreme corners of my photos. My

judgments are not based on slides either, so some printer falloff

would be expected. I'm not going to say it's as sharp as the prime. I

haven't compared. But I'm saying for a 20mm, it's darned good. I

question if it would be a problem for anyone, considering the

versatility of the zoom. I find it more than just convenient to

change focal length, it's a necessity at times for framing.

[chris8]

Given that you have the 28-135 already and I am sure that is your

primary lens I can say from experience that I would go for the 20

prime. I Can say that becasue I have done it. I have a 28-70 2.8 and

the 28-135. he 20-35 offers nothing to you. The 20 is extremely sharp

and has excellent contrast. If you pay extra for the 20-35 you buying

a focal range you already have covered and your giving up USM and

what I believe is superior sharpness. I would save the extra $$ and

go 20mm

[max_dibe]

I have a canon 50e + 28-135 is.

I want to bye a 20-35 3.5-4.5. What do you think about this combo for

travel?

it's better to bye a 20 2.8?

 

<p>

 

thanks.