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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
?