Canon EF20/2.8 & EF28/1.8 vs Zoom 16-35/2.8

[udo_stensitzky]

I'd like to buy some lenses for wide angle work, either the

mentioned primes or the zoom. So I checked all these reviews in the

web. There is plenty of information, which is unfortunately

sometimes not really consistent. The reason might be variations in

built quality or even taste of the reviewers. At the end there is

still some uncertainty for me. I have never been using zoom lenses

till now, but this 16-35 might get a go.

 

Does anyone have experience with the above mentioned lenses? Any

helpful comment on this issue is appreciated. Many thanks.

[peter_white2]

I use both the zoom and the 28 f/1.8 on a 5D. The zoom is excellent except at the widest focal length where there's strong vignetting wide open. It's fine once you're stopped down a bit. f/5.6 is great and any aperture from 20mm and longer is fine.

 

The 28 has soft corners at maximum aperture. The center is very sharp and as you stop down the center sharp area increases in diameter until f/8 when it's razor sharp corner to corner. But at f/4 the area that's soft in the corners is very small so you can count on not noticing anything soft from f/4 on. And of course the soft corners wide open would only be an issue when focused at infinity since shallow depth of field will put most corner detail out of focus anyway.

[chris_hutchins]

I have the 20mm 2.8 and am happy with it. I use a 350D so I can't comment on corner sharpness but overall performance is good(contrary to some reviews I read before purchase). The biggest problem I have is that the distance scale is pretty rubbish when used on a cropped body as the distances are very close together.

[bill_fouche]

The 24/2.8, which I like a great deal, is also in your flocal-length range. It's lighter than the 20 and the 16-35 and doesn't have corner-softness issues.

[john20]

I have had both the 20 2.8 and the 28 1.8. I wasn't impressed with the 28 1.8 right from the get-go(very soft). The 20 2.8 did make me happy, until I tried the 17-40L(way sharper). The difference was too much to ignore. I have a friend with the 16-35L, and it is pretty much the same as my 17-40. Which makes me even more happy with my choice to sell the two primes. If you need speed, get the 16-35L. If speed is not a big concern, get the 17-40L, and save some bucks!

 

John

[marknagel]

I had the 28/1.8 and have the 16-35/2.8. I think the 16-35 is sharper both wide open, and its a bit sharper both at 2.8. The 28/1.8 is nice for low light indoors w/o a flash. I really like my 16-35 and would take it over the 28/1.8 any day, unless I really needed the extra $1000 for something else.

 

Mark

[pbizarro]

It is pointless to compare zooms to primes. They are different, period. Get both, if you find yourself in situations where you miss the flexibility of the zoom, or the low light capability of f/1.8 primes.

 

The 16-35 is a very good zoom, I like mine a lot, for shooting landscapes. I figure if it is good enough for professionals, then it is most likely good for me too.

[yakim_peled1]

<ul>

<li>Which camera are you using?</li>

<li>How badly do you need the wide aperture and why? After all, most wide-angles are used stopped down. </li>

<li>How wide is wide enough? The 16-20 range packs some VERY different FoV. </li>

</ul>

 

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

[lester_wareham]

The problem with sub 35mm lenses seems to be the production tollerences are enough that one copy of lens A may be sharper than a copy of lens B for for another pair the situation might be reversed.

I don't know if this is a Canon only problem of more wide spread.

 

I have gone though exacty the same process of confussion and uncertanty as you and decided on the 17-40 f4L and 28/1.8. I can't comment on them as I am still awaiting delivery.

 

I have seen tests where the 17-40 and 20/2.8 were equaly sharp. Others where the 16-35 or 17-40 was sharper than the other or about the same.

[udo_stensitzky]

Yes, you're right, I forgot to mention the camera type. It is a 1Ds-MkII. Actually I am using some Nikon lenses with an EOS adapter. Since my eyes are getting weaker I do have some problems with stop down metering and that's the reason why I would like to switch to Canon lenses being able to work wide open till the shutter releases. So in other words, the wide aperture is needed for a bright viewfinder and in the end the aperture will mostly be used at the sweet spot. And honestly spoken I'd like to have the attached shooting data later in the EXIF information, which is blank for some parameters when the Nikkors are being used.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> Unfortunately, all those lenses have some good and bad copies. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G9NR&tag=">I suspect that my copy of the 28/1.8 is unusually good</a> but many complain on soft corners. I also have a friend which found his 17-40/4 vastly superior to his 16-35/2.8. Others found them to be identical. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-20mm-f-2.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">The 20/2.8 also has it's problems</a>. </p>

<p> Summary: Test them in the shop and get the one you like best. </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>