I am going to be selling my 17-40 F4L soon. I do a lot of indoor event photography and I really would like the extra light of a 2.8. So, I may get the 20-35 2.8L I've seen some good prices. What are people's thoughts on this lens? I know there's no USM, so I don't think the noise will bother me much.
Right now the 10D. Used 16-35 are going for too much IMO. That's how it goes with the newer Ls unfortunately. I have used non-USM and I don't really mind them. Thanks!
The 20-35L F2.8 lens is great in my opinion. I picked one up here on FM back in February and have been more than happy with it. Even though its not equiped with USM it focuses just as fast as any of my lenses that do have it. Its a great lens, get one if you can!
old (pre-1990) zoom lenses may not fare as well in the chromatic aberrations department. I see quite a few reviews of CA for the 20-35L, and I have noticed it too for my 28-70 f/3.5-4.5, both of which belong to the first generation EOS lenses.
I played with this lens for about a month, i ended up getting the 17-35 2.8 L
Its very prone to flare, and i didnt like that it wasnt USM. It can focus fast but there is no full time manual over ride which is irritating if you are in low light conditions. I would say its sharp, but Canon definatly has sharper lenses. I would choose this lens before any 3rd party but if i was you would look for a good deal on a 17-35 2.8 or bite the bullet on the 16-35 2.8
I use the 20-35 f2.8 L lens for event photography on the canon 1d and 1ds no problems at all with the non usm infact I notice no differance in focus speed at all. A good bit of glass for its age..
I sold my Canon 17-40 on Ebay and I am satisfied from this reason, I bought so Canon 20-35/2.8 and I dare say, that this is the splendid lens, only what is lacking to me from 17-40, the minimum focus distance is greater than in 17-40, extrathis, the Canon 20-35/2.8 has better contrast and is extremely sharp and of course the maximum aperture is 2.8.
I don't carre for noise AF, on 10D AF is not accurate anyway.
I purchased the 20-35 f2.8L for my 20D and ended up selling it about a month later.
Really the big problem i had was an incredible purple fringing when i took pictures outside and dusk or sunset...
If all you plan to do with it is indoor event work you should be very happy with it as the color reprisentation and contrast are excellent. I sold it and went with a sigma 12-24 since I was in need of wide angle for a few spring projects. I am planning on 16-35 2.8 l very soon though...
I have my 20-35 2.8 up for auction right now on that popular auction site.
For the most part, I was very satisfied with the performance, and I didn't really miss the USM. However, CA and flare were problems especially outside. Sharpness was good after f4 and excellent at f5.6 and f8.
In the end I am selling it for a Sigma 18-50 2.8. (I can hear the groans as I write this, but I had to sell it for financial reasons...and I got a great deal on the Sigma). I will be sure to do a comparison as soon as the Sigma arrives and before I pack this one up.
