Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2013 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L
  
 
kezeka
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Annnd then I got distracted just in time to miss out on placing a last second bid. It went for $398 + $25 for shipping. I'll be keeping my eyes pealed for another one.

@gel685 - you sound relatively pleased with yours. Any major problems in your years of ownership?



Mar 10, 2013 at 09:08 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


That was a great price for a nice lens.

I chose the 20-35 over a 16-35 because there's something I like about 20mm. I don't shoot architectural interiors and if I can't make a landscape work at 20mm, I can't at 16mm either.

20mm is, to my eyes, a nice looking, usable wide angle.

Criticisms would be the AF but you have to learn the lens a little and that the FL is so short - it's range is 'only' 15mm.



Mar 11, 2013 at 01:01 AM
gel685
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Kezeka,

I've had the lens for about 3-4 years. The only problem I have with it is the long minimum focus distance. That should almost never be an issue with landscapes. Also, being an older lens, Adobe doesn't have a profile for it, so you'll need to correct the distortion yourself it it bothers you. It hasn't bothered me enough to deal with it. f/8 cleans up the edges pretty well, but it will still be a little soft in the extreme corners. Photographers are the only people who scrutinize the extreme corners of a photo anyway. On the plus side, it's he mechanically smoothest auto-focus lens I've ever used. It reminds me of old-school manual focus lenses. Unless you are shooting sports with an ultra-wide, auto-focus is plenty fast. So in summary, if the minimum focus distance is okay, then you'll be good to go with one.--Eric.



Mar 11, 2013 at 02:45 AM
kezeka
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


I genuinely appreciate the replies. Hard to find good information about old equipment matched with the newer bodies. Won't be using it for sports so the AF shouldn't be an issue. Slow AF doesn't bother me as much having learned to cope with an 85L so I doubt it will cause trouble as a walk around. Shooting lenses wide open and dealing with the consequences is something that doesn't bother me nearly as much as our pixel peeping bretheren here on FM.

Now for the hardest bit, finding another good deal on one!



Mar 11, 2013 at 03:48 AM
Curtiss Bryant
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Hey.. I won that lens.. small world..

And to be honest, I just now saw this thread.. well after I bought it



Mar 11, 2013 at 04:03 AM
kezeka
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


No kidding! Congratulations! Let me know your impressions on it.


Mar 11, 2013 at 04:05 AM
timpdx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


I had one for a while, I got it for $400 and sold it later for 50 more than that, it was decent, nothing mind blowing but not a disappointment, either. I was shooting crop at the time and sold it and got a Tokina 12-24 at that time, which was sharper but also had lots of CA. these days I would not hesitate to buy at around $400 or under, keeping in mind it really is not repairable is something goes south, but you are getting 2.8 L performance at a real fair price.


Mar 11, 2013 at 04:09 AM
Curtiss Bryant
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Will do.. I've been watching them for awhile and actually surprised I got it under $400 (well $425 shipped). I have seen them $600+ recently. Ill be using it on the 5d3 so I will let you know. I don't need the focal length often so I didn't want to buy the 16-35. S o hopefully this one is good


Mar 11, 2013 at 04:11 AM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Ken Rockwell has a review of it. He likes it. About half way through the review he has a table of the distortion corrections to use by focal length which might be useful for Lightroom or PS.


Mar 11, 2013 at 04:16 AM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


stanj wrote:
Not really by today's standards, really. The 17-35, 16-35, 16-35 mk2, 17-40 are all notably better optically. So while yes back in the 80s this lens was great, for today's high pixel density sensors, not so much.


+1



Mar 11, 2013 at 06:11 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


stanj wrote:
...for today's high pixel density sensors, not so much.


I dispute that. I love my copy.





Mar 11, 2013 at 07:56 AM
stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


stanj wrote:
...for today's high pixel density sensors, not so much.

Paul Mo wrote:
I dispute that. I love my copy.


And that's what's great about free economy and a free market



Mar 11, 2013 at 01:30 PM
Tom Dix
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


I really like my 20/35. Found it superior to the 17/35, but not equal of my 16/35II.
Perhaps, there was significant copy variance; mine has always been solid, film or digital.
It does sit more, since I have added the 16/35 to my bag.



Mar 12, 2013 at 03:10 AM
kezeka
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Then you probably wouldn't mind seeing it leave your bag for $350, right ?


Mar 12, 2013 at 03:50 AM
Tom Dix
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Haha! You never know Joshua. For now, I'm gonna hang on to it.



Mar 12, 2013 at 04:13 AM
shmoogy
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


I had it and really enjoyed it. It was fairly sharp, but flare control was awful. I sold it as I don't generally like having lenses which are very difficult/expensive to repair, and I already had two lenses that covered the focal length(s).




Mar 13, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


shmoogy wrote:
...but flare control was awful.


To me that was one of its selling points - it's nice to have flare now and again.



Mar 13, 2013 at 01:00 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


Tom Dix wrote:
I really like my 20/35. Found it superior to the 17/35, but not equal of my 16/35II.
Perhaps, there was significant copy variance; mine has always been solid, film or digital.
It does sit more, since I have added the 16/35 to my bag.


Similar experience here, Tom. Except I sold mine a couple of years ago. Either way, that was a great little lens for the money.



Mar 13, 2013 at 01:11 AM
didierv
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


I had the 20-35 for a couple of years.
I found it pretty good, with excellent color rendition.
I really liked it, but I needed the 16 mm width, so I sold it recently for a 16-35 MkI, IQ wise I think they are both equal.
FYI, I sold mine which was a very clean copy for $485.00, which I think is a fair price for that lens.



Mar 13, 2013 at 02:23 AM
kezeka
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 20-35mm f/2.8 L


The only very clean copy I have seen was going on ebay for $750. Lens market prices for older equipment are on the rise it would seem.

@didierv - did you ever have a chance to use it on a full frame? Was is passable on the edges?



Mar 13, 2013 at 04:17 AM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password