20-35/2.8L on 1Ds ???

[Jack Flesher]

Welcome to the search for the "Holy Grail" of wideangle lenses for the full-frame Canons...

I have had the 20-35 in the past, and about all I can tell you is there are good ones and bad ones, just like the 16-35.  I'll add that even the best 16-35 is probably not going to knock your sox off... and I've got a good one.

[howard smith]

pmazolo, I used to have a 20-35.  Someone broke into my truck and stole all the camera gear inside, except that lens.  They took it off the body and tossed it in the back.  Not even worth stealing.

[didger]

Almost no-one seems to like any of the 28mm Canons (the 1.8 seems no better than the 2. and recommend 24/1.4 (2.0 also OK), or 35/1.4 (2.0 also OK) instead....

If you're considering primes in the 28-35mm range, the Zeiss ones are generally considered the best and the 28 and 35's are cheap and easy to find.  You need an adapter for eos, but that's not a big deal, except you don't have auto aperture control or autofocus.  If you can live with that, Zeiss prime wide angle might be a good choice.

[pmazolo]

I have just abought a Canon 1Ds and some lenses. Among them a used 20-35/2.8L that seems pretty bad. Now, I would like to know if someone tested this on a 1Ds and know if its my individual thats bad or if "this is as good as they get". I find several problems with the lens, but most visible is the dramatic corner unsharpness at 20/2.8 that seems to come almost along a well defined circular line in the image area... Could this be a problem with the combination with the 1Ds sensor?

Is the 16-35/2.8L WAY MUCH better or just better?

[didger]

Welcome to the search for the "Holy Grail" of wideangle lenses for the full-frame Canons...

Yeah, and lots of luck, especially lots of luck finding any wide angle zoom that's corner sharp at f2.8.  I just bought a Tamron 17-35 because my own tests (in the store) were adequately encouraging and the many reviews are totally over the top. At 17mm this lens is not bad at f16, especially for distant subjects, but totally garbage at f2.8.  My Zeiss primes are at least fairly good even at larger apertures, but also not great.  Thus I try to shoot just about everything at f11 or so and f16 with the Tamron at 17mm or so.

As for 16-35 L better or way much better, you should read Michael's review comparing 16-35 with 17-40.  17-40 is almost world renowned for corner weakness at 17mm with full size sensor and Michael's 16-35 was substantially worse than his 17-40.  Extremely common extremely substantial sample variations make any such comparisons virtually meaningless unless a large number of samples were tested.  This is never the case, thus such completely different reviews.  Buying one of these lenses is a total crap shoot (no matter what manufacturer) unless you test samples and find a sweet one.  Jack tested some 16-35's and lucked out with a great one (pretty great, anyway).  I didn't test my Zeisses and lucked out with my Z18 and also my Z35 and Z16 fisheye, but only got an average or less Z28.  There's just no way to test Zeiss lenses at all (no one has them) and even testing Canon ultrawide zooms is not so easy, since few dealers outside of NYC have enough on hand and are willing to let you test them (unless you rent one at a time til you find one).
Again, good luck!

[pmazolo]

Thanks all!

It is so confusing with all these reviews and opinions that go in totally different directions....

However, it seems the 16-35 is generally better than the 20-35, and that the 17-40 and 17-35 are almost as good as the 16-35.... (but very much up to individual samples)

Almost no-one seems to like any of the 28mm Canons (the 1.8 seems no better than the 2. and recommend 24/1.4 (2.0 also OK), or 35/1.4 (2.0 also OK) instead.... while the 24/TS is considered good too.

Would you say my summing up of 24-35 range Canon "internet rumors" is correct?

[pmazolo]

Well, Zeiss is probably not an option as I need AutoFocus. I am not very good at focusing manually and tend to have loads of slightly unsharp frames....