Choice between these three lenses, which would be "OPTICALLY" the best on Canon 20D

[carl chandler]

Which of these lenses would be "OPTICALLY" best on a 20D? 17-85mm

F/4-5.6 IS USM, 17-35 f/2.8L, 17-40 f/4L, which of these is

optically best? I think the 17-35 f/2.8L (would be my first choice),

second choice 17-40 f/4L , have read that the f/4L is sharper than

the 2.8 dont see how, last choice 17-85 f/4-5.6 .

[WM]

Most likely the 17-40L, from what I have read. I haven't used the 17-35 or 17-85, but the 17-40 really shines on my 10d. I currently use a 16-35 because what I shoot requires the extra stop, but I cannot see much (if any) between my 16-35 and my previous 17-40L.

 

If you need the extra stop, then you have no choce but to go for the f2.8 version. Just my 2 cents.

[mark u]

The 17-40. (The 17-35 was an expensive turkey, rapidly replaced by the 16-35 f/2.8L).

[chris_whitted]

I'm no expert, but I don't believe the optical quality of a lens is going to change no matter what body you put it on. Unless you're asking if the 20D can resolve enough to see a difference between the two.<BR><BR>

 

<A HREF="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml">16-35 vs. 17-35</A> + <A HREF="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml">17-40 vs. 16-35</A> infers 17-40 > 17-35. Sample variations aside, etc. etc.<BR><BR>

 

Under what shooting conditions? See the second comparision up there - sometimes one is better, sometimes the other. I haven't seen anyone say the 17-85 is better, other than it has twice the range - which means all other things being equal it's probably optically worse than the 17-40.

[jim_larson1]

Yeah. . also read this guy. . .http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/20D/index.htm

 

Note that these tests are at F8. . .and most people generally say that at F8 or F11 most lenses are pretty equal. Where the 17-40/4L will shine is at F4.

[PuppyDigs]

"The 17-35 was an expensive turkey, rapidly replaced by the 16-35 f/2.8L"

 

The EF 17-28 2.8L USM was introduced in Spring 1996 and replaced by the EF 16-35 2.8L USM in early 2002. Six years of production hardly qualifies as "rapidly replaced." Save a few lemmons, it was a darn tootin' little piece 'o glass.

[yakim_peled1]

I think I got one of these lemons. 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. If I had to choose today from these 3 zooms I'd get the 17-40/4.

 

No experience with the 17-40/4 (which I considered before buying the primes) or 17-85 IS. HTH.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[amit_bronstein]

The 17-40 is the best choice you can get. Excellent, sharp.. Just good words!. Only problem: The huge 77mm filter makes the internal flash useless.

 

Amit

[terry_smith2]

I've never had any problems with my 17-35/2.8 except that the AF selector switch on the body fell off one day and got lost. I covered the hole with scotch tape and I've had no more problems. No complaints with image quality, either.

[mike_smith2]

I have the 17-35L F2.8L for landscape work. I am disappointed with edge softness and hate the lens flare when pointed any where remotely towards the sun.

 

Just replaced it with a Zeiss Distagon 18mm ('cos 21mm are as rare as hens teeth secondhand), now waiting for a sunny day to do a side by side test at F4 and F5.6. I acquired the Zeiss lens and adaptor on Ebay for less than the cost of a new 17-40L. I expect it to be considerably superior for my purposes.

 

Depends wghat you want out of your lenses. Optically superior usually means prime lenses not zooms if you are really that critical.

 

Mike Smith

 

UK