I'm looking for adding to my wide end options this year to go with the 5D which is in the works.
I've already decided on the 35mm f/1.4L and the 24mm f/1.4L But beyond that it looks like the choices are the 14mm f/2.8L or the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.
The 14 seem to be very pricey for even an L but do you get great quality for the price? The 15mm seem to be very affordable and gets good reveiws here.
Or should I for a 2.8 in this area just go with the 16-35 zoom?
Edited by johnastovall on Dec 31, 2005 at 04:33 PM GMT
the 16-35 would certainly nail the whole range in one POW and you could sell your 17-40... I had the 17-40... upgraded to the 16-35 and is is better but not "miles" better... the 2.8 f stop is really handy in many situations and I'm nailing way more shots with the 16-35 than I did with the 17-40. The extra 1mm is a lot on the 20D. May not make such a huge difference on a 5D
To me in that range, I don't need anything faster than f/2.8. (actually I am happy with f/4) So I would go with 16-35 if your 17-40 is not good enough. Or maybe you can try some non-canon glasses, but I am not familiar with those lenses, so cannot comment on that...
mfoto wrote:
the 16-35 would certainly nail the whole range in one POW and you could sell your 17-40... I had the 17-40... upgraded to the 16-35 and is is better but not "miles" better... the 2.8 f stop is really handy in many situations and I'm nailing way more shots with the 16-35 than I did with the 17-40. The extra 1mm is a lot on the 20D. May not make such a huge difference on a 5D
BINGO.....nailing more shots with AF is what drove me to the 16-35, as well as it's excellent resolution and ability to be used in low light without flash..........when i first read that the 20D uses a higher sensetivity AF with f/2.8 or faster lenses i thought "yeah $$$$$ right" but having switched to all f/2.8 zooms, i can honestly say yes it does happen that way......my 17-40 was giving me some mishits with lowlight shots (even though i used flash), but i have not had one miss with the 16-35. the wide end is not edge to edge sharp when shot at f/2.8 of a landscape scene, but for using in this way in low light you'll be amazed........for all else, the 16-35 is proving to be more useful and quite sharp for covering all the 16-35mm needs.
