ef 20-35L compare to 20-35 USM

[terence_tong1]

one being an L and the other is a highly regard ultra wide zoom

 

other than the constant F stop on the L, does the L justify the price? about 2x for a

89' vs brand new? (650+ vs ~300)

 

per Photozone.de 's lens comparison data, both are in "good" zone and the USM

nipping the L's heel

 

so what gives? is it all because of the illusive/discontinued L?

 

'i know prime is better, thans"

[medina photography cherry]

I am no camera expert as far as the algorithims or whatever the things that lens do. What are your needs? need a wide angle lens? or do you need the large aperature for low light, hand hold photojournalism? I remember reading someones response before that if you shoot a the higher f-stops, like f-8,f-11 and above than the 2.8 will be wasted money (I am sure some will attack me for that) I have the 20-35 usm (consumer model) and it is a great lens. I use it on my 10D and it is sharp enough. Of course with a D-SLR the corners are cropped out so you get the best part of the lens. If I had the money would I have gotten the L version? Absolutely! Why? because of the ruggedness and quality of the glass and mechanical componets. Am I happy with the USM version? Absolutely! sorry so long winded!

[fxdonny]

This should have been addressed in Canon EOS forum, so that many EOS user can answer it more accurately. Being a Canon EOS user myself, I believe that you'll see the differences in both lenses when you shoot wide open, meaning that the L lens is sharper wide open. Also the L lens has an extra stop advantage, which means you can shoot with this lens in less lighting condition. However, as Robert has mentioned, if you shoot mostly at f/8-f/11, the difference between both lenses are negligible. So.. it really depends on your shooting style and needs.

[david arnold eugene, oreg]

Why are you considering the 20-35L, since it's no longer manufactured? If you're looking for a used one, however, you might find a good deal. If buying new, (a) the 16-35L is much better, and (b) you can't get a new 20-35L anyhow. If you don't need the 2.8 aperture, the new 17-40 f/4 L is equal to, and according to some tests better than, the 16-35L, and it's much cheaper. I paid $800 from B&H for it a couple of months ago, and feel the lens is worth it, but they've just dropped the price to $700. A heck of a deal in my opinion. Yes, the 20-35 USM comes close if you're shooting at f/8 or f/11, but at larger apertures there's a noticeable difference. I find the 17-40 excellent even wide open. And with wide angle zooms there's another issue: distortion. Barrel distortion at 17 mm with the 17-40 is minimal. I previously used a Tokina 19-35, and at 19 mm it had enough barrel distortion to supply a medium-sized wineries. Not a problem for landscapes, but a disaster for any subject with straight lines near the edges of the frame.