about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 20-35mm f/2.8L

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
33 152711 Sep 17, 2012
Recommended By Average Price
94% of reviewers $489.05
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
9.54
8.9
ef20_35mm

Specifications:
Highly portable lens with high optical performance and light weight of 12 oz. (340 g). A very practical ultra-wide-angle zoom. The large front lens group minimizes peripheral darkening, and the flare-blocking diaphragm minimizes flare. Also, with lens group 2 being the zoom group, distortion is corrected. Out-of-production.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3  next
          
tolley
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 135
Review Date: Feb 1, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Feels very well made, although heavy. As sharp as any zoom out there.
Cons:
Narrow zoom range.

This was my first L lens, so naturally I was impressed. The build quality is great. A little slower focus than USM but not bad at all. For the price it definately serves its purpose well.

Feb 1, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add tolley to your Buddy List  
CGrindahl
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11937
Review Date: Jan 10, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Excellent color and contrast with fine sharpness; solidly built and nicely balanced on camera; great range on full frame camera
Cons:
Noisy focus that is slower than USM but not a problem in my experience

I loved the 17-40L when shooting on a 20D but when I bought the 5D I became intrigued with the faster and much older 20-35L. I don't really need the extra width of the newer lens for the kind of shooting I do so when I was able to pick up an excellent used copy of the 20-35L I decided to try it out. It certainly hasn't disappointed me in any way though I have yet to decide whether I like it well enough to sell the 17-40.

The 20-35L has a metal barrel so despite its smaller size it weighs a bit more than the newer lens. Yet the size and weight work beautifully with the 5D and I love using it as a walk around lens. The color and contrast are excellent though not quite as rich as the 17-40. Sharpness at the center of the image is impressive but there is some fall off toward the edges, as one would expect from a wide-angle lens. Since my post-processing work flow generally includes a judicious application of Unsharpen Mask, the slight softness is not a serious problem.

It does not have USM focusing but despite a bit of noise as it moves, the lens focuses quickly. I've had no problems though I should note I most often use the lens while shooting landscapes. Of course, I'll likely use an even faster prime if I'm shooting portraits or in low-light situations and they all have USM which is lightening fast.

One caution given to me when I was considering this lens is the fact it has been out of production for so long that it might be difficult to get parts if repair is necessary. Yes, this is an old lens, but like its companion the "Magic Drainpipe" it is a great performer and certainly worth consideration if you find one in good condition at a fair price.


Jan 10, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add CGrindahl to your Buddy List  
twistedlim
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3127
Review Date: Jul 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very solid build. Sharp throughout the aperture range with very nice contrast and colors. Every bit as good as any 17-40 I have shot.
Cons:
Slow auto focus with some noise, but it does not really bother me at this focus length.

Replaced a 17-40 with this lens. I had to determine if 2.8 was worth the extra length and wideness of the 17-40. To me it was. The 17-40 is a great lens but I found myself leaving it in the bag too often (or leaving it at home) because when I took it I would have to have a flash with me. I was surprised at how sharp the 20-35 is wide open. Very nice contrast and colors. As good as the 17-40 at 4.0. Not quite as good at 2.8 but zoom is? I don't really mind the slow focus at this focal lenght as I am usually shooting people at close range or landscape. In either case an ultra fast focus is not necessary to me.


Jul 24, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add twistedlim to your Buddy List  
karl_burns
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 157
Review Date: Jun 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Great lens. MY first "L" last year and it quickly became my favorite. Great, solid quality lens that performed flawlessly. Crisp and clear, even at F 2.8.
Cons:
AF was kinda noisy, but since the lens was pretty old, that was to be expected.

I used this lens for a solid year and it never failed. This is a great, "poor man's" version of the 17-40 "L". The only reason I got rid of it was I went wider, and ended up picking up a 24-70 zoom to be my workhorse lens.


Jun 28, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add karl_burns to your Buddy List  
SJMD
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 15294
Review Date: Apr 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Solid build - just a good feel on the camera. Wondeful lens with the 1.6 crop. Very reasonable on the used market. Super value, quality, and usefulness. A great way to learn who great an L lens can be without spending all your money
Cons:
It not the lastest greatest lens out there, but it still and solid L lens

* Great lens for the price
* Keeps value
* Great at what it does
* Not heavy
* Would I get a 16-35 --- of course but mine was 1/4 the cost and I spent the money on another lens. Great color, clear, sharp images.

A super lens inside the house on a 1.6 camera to use at Christmas and birthdays to get actions shots of the family, up close portraits and wide angle shots when needed (a 24/28 -70/80 2.8 is better on a 5D ).

Is easily worth what you pay for this lens!
Solid lens that feels great when you use it to take super photographs. You feel like you got a real deal, even months after you own the lens -- I had mine for 16 months before posting this review.

God bless - steve


Apr 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add SJMD to your Buddy List  
timpdx
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1766
Review Date: Jan 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Great glass for price, plenty sharp wide open (not quite 16-35,but close). Nice build quality.
Cons:
Non USM focus, takes a tad longer than my other L's.

Great lens for the going price on the used market, I have a nice sharp copy, very decent wide open, even better (like the 16-35 quality) by F4. Focus is good, although not USM, but still very accurate. Bought this for low light events and this is a great zoom range for that use, plenty of keepers at F2.8 and ISO 800 on a 20D. Its a keeper for me.

Jan 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add timpdx to your Buddy List  
jcw1982
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1502
Review Date: Dec 26, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: good build quality, sharp, pleasing zoom range, nice price.
Cons:
none for the price.

I bought this lens used and have been quiet pleased with it. I don't believe the focus speeds(which seem plenty fast enough to me) are really an issue with a wide angle lens, likewise the overall speed of the lens itself. No, it isn't a fast "L" lens, but it never claimed it was. And I didn't pay the price of an "L" lens.

Dec 26, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jcw1982 to your Buddy List  
garysblim
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 340
Review Date: Dec 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: 1. Good optical quality (I think it's best around f8.0) despite its age 2. Well built 3. It comes with hood 4. Well balanced 5. It's a "L" lens
Cons:
1. no USM (but this lens is old!) 2. Range is a bit short (20-35 -> less than 2x) 3. close focus range is a bit far.

This is one lens that I brought over from the FF film world to my D20 (actually most of my lenses are anyway). It was wide enough on FF but not wide enough to call a true wide angle zoom lens on my D20. Having said that, I find myself using this more often than I used to. I guess this fits in the sweet spot of my most used range (ie 30 to 60mm in 35mm format). This is great in low light and is well balanced on my D20 with grip (I chose this over 17-40 f4L). As the wide range is still missing, I finally got a 10-22 to fill the gap but that's another story. If you can find a good used one, get it.

Dec 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add garysblim to your Buddy List  
Serpamac
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 30, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 142
Review Date: Oct 17, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very good build, sharp and handled nicely. Low price for a L quality wide angle lens Underrated and neglected quality prime
Cons:
USM a touch slower than other L, a bit soft at 20mm Short zoom range

On a DSLR with 1.6x like the 20D, this is the perfect general walk-around lens. Almost tack sharp at 2.8, it just becomes much better as you closed down.

The less than 2x focal coverage from 20 to 35mm is too short. I would have preferred up to 50mm, or at least 40mm.

Even though kind of bulky, the lens feels good and well balanced in hands, and is solidly built. Not cheap construction like some other L lenses.


Oct 17, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Serpamac to your Buddy List  
in-apt
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 8, 2003
Location: Portugal
Posts: 31
Review Date: May 28, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Excellent build, solid and with a balanced weight. Very sharp.
Cons:
Focusing is slow for an L lens (no USM). Mind you, it is fast, just not super-fast. :)

First of all, the image on top is wrong - that is not the lens being debated here. The 20-35 looks like the typical L short zoom, black with the distinctive red ring.

It is an excellent lens, surely not new, but if you happen to see an used one for sale, don't hesitate to buy.


L quality for a 1/4 of the price, and a wide-angle at that.
Can't be beat.

I'm very happy - and its slapped on my 20D all the time!


May 28, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add in-apt to your Buddy List  
jcrawford
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 167
Review Date: Feb 17, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: great contrast and sharpness, very nice build.
Cons:
horrible CA on my 20D ... if you are shooting outdoors with branches they will be purple.

I purchased this lens for a great price and it is a very good lens if shooting indoors for portraits and such, however i would not recomend it for outdoor uses. the CA is very noticable.



Feb 17, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jcrawford to your Buddy List  
mlorne
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 23, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 893
Review Date: Jan 21, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Build quality; good zoom and focus action; sharpness (when stopped down slightly)
Cons:
prone to flare sometimes; CA slightly more visible than other newer WAs; soft at 2.8 below 30mm

I have been using the 20-35L 2.8 for about 4 months now and I don't think I would go without it. On my EOS 3, it was a superb wide angle, showing very little distortion on the edges considering its width. On the 10D, it is equivalent to about 35-55 which is not ideal wide, but still a good reach.

On the 20mm end, you have to stop up to around 5.6-8 to get the optimal sharpness and contrast. However, when at 30-35mm, the 2.8-4 is more than sharp enough.

The only issues I've had with the lens thus far:

- it is prone to flare. But show me a WA that isn't. Compared to some of the 12mm zoom offerings from Sigma, flare is not a problem with the 20-35.
- Chromatic abberation can be marked in some instances, most specifically around tree branches surrounded by light sky. This is not unusual for most lenses, but it is rather substantial for an L lens.

I have yet to use a 20 or 24 prime. I have always thought of picking one up, but then I start to wonder what the point is when I have such a nice lens with the zoom convenience.


Jan 21, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mlorne to your Buddy List  
3killdeer
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 38
Review Date: Jan 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: L build quality, price, picture quality
Cons:
none for price and what it is

I am using this and a 28-80 2-8-4.0L as backups to my 17-40 4 L and 24-70 2.8L. It is a faster lens and that sometimes comes in handy. I have found the build quality and picture quality to be up to L standards. On a 300D with the 1.6 crop factor it would be nice of it were wider. It focuses surprising quickly and quietly for a non USM, I have not found that to be any problem. This is a good lens for the price that they are available for on the used market.

Jan 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add 3killdeer to your Buddy List  
tech058
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 28
Review Date: Jan 5, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Low price for an L-Series lens. Great build quality. Color/Contrast is good.
Cons:
Very soft at f/2.8, heavy, 50cm minimum focus.

I was very excited about this lens. I picked it up at Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto, Ca for $600. I thought it was a great deal at the time. The lens was in such fantastic condition, it was gleaming!

+ The lens feels very good/solid in your hands. I love holding this lens more than anything. Its cold and smooth. Very nice zoom and focus action. You look through the glass and its very nice and bright.
- Sharpness is unacceptable wider than f/4 and only "good" after that, not what you would expect from L-glass. I found the sharpness of this lens comparable to the EF-S 18-55. The 18-55 is decent at f/8 considering the weight and cost, but a +500g lens at $600 should do a lot better.
+ Color and contrast is good.
- Minimum focus is 50cm. Ofcourse you know this when you buy it so you can't be surprised. At such a wide angle sometimes you need/want to get up close to the subject for effect. Can't do it with this lens.

Overall, look somewhere else to fill your wide angle gap. Or come find me, I'll sell you mine! Wink



Jan 5, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tech058 to your Buddy List  
MarkSaperstein
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 23, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1339
Review Date: Dec 8, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Excellent build quality, very good optics
Cons:
Long minimum focus, corners very soft on full frame, no USM

This lens is certainly better than the non-L consumer zooms, but the newer wide angle L zooms are better overall. Resolution at f/2.8 is OK, but you need to stop down to about f/5.6 for really sharp images. Performance in the corners with a full frame camera is not so good. This is one area where the newer L zooms are much improved. The non-USM autofocus is pretty snappy.

Dec 8, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add MarkSaperstein to your Buddy List  
pchang604
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 576
Review Date: Jan 17, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Great for what it does in the 20-35mm range. An oldie but a goodie. Solid construction, especially the barrel, which is all metal. Feels like a tin can with glass on the ends.
Cons:
Doesn't go wider than 20mm, which is especially limiting on digital with the 1.6x crop factor. No USM means a little slower focus and a bit noisier than the newer models. However, the motor sounds far more refined and subdued than the "robotic arm" whine of the 50mm 1.8 Mk. I.

Excellent at the current secondary market price. A keeper in case future "budget" digital bodies start employing a full size sensor trickled down from the 1Ds (hopefully sooner rather than later). In that case, a "real" 20mm should be adequate for most photographers' need. Sharpness, color and contrast still in L glass league, and barrel distortion is actually on par if not better than the newer offerings. I'd go for this at the relatively slight premium over the consumer grade 20-35mm USM.

Jan 17, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add pchang604 to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 20-35mm f/2.8L

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
33 152711 Sep 17, 2012
Recommended By Average Price
94% of reviewers $489.05
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.64
9.54
8.9
ef20_35mm


Page:  1 · 2 · 3  next