I'd like advice on 16-35 vs 20-35

05/20/2005 10:29:12 AM · #1

Ok, about a month ago I bough a 16-35 f/2.8L. It was expensive but a fair price...$1300 CAD. I should be able to resell and make a hundred bucks or so.

Here's the thing. I can buy a used 20-35 f/2.8L for $300 CAD. If I can 'make do', that's $1000 in my pocket!

What do you guys think? Anyone own this lens? Has anyone owned both and can compare them?

I know, I'm a grown boy and should be able to make decisions on my own...but I can't. So help me out!

PaulMdx

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

05/20/2005 10:42:52 AM · #2

Check out the reviews on Fred Miranda. I believe both are reasonably non-tack-sharp, due to being so wide angle.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/20/2005 11:49:28 AM · #3

There is no comparison, the 20-35 is not an "L" lens and is 4mm less wide. 4mm is quite a big difference. Build quality is of course lesss solid than the 16-35.

05/20/2005 12:14:22 PM · #4

Nick, I'm certain that it's a 20-35 f/2.8L...

I know 4mm is a lot but so is $1000!

And I've never been entirely happy with the 16-35...I'm not sure why, I guess I need to play with it more...

PaulMdx

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

05/20/2005 02:34:25 PM · #5

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Nick, I'm certain that it's a 20-35 f/2.8L...

Yep. According to PhotoDo:

Grade: 3.5 35mm/AF Canon EF 20-35/2,8L discontinued

They don't have the 16-35 because PhotoDo is quite an old site. They do have the older 17-35, however..

Grade: 3.2 35mm/AF Canon EF 17-35/2,8L USM

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/20/2005 02:54:58 PM · #6

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Nick, I'm certain that it's a 20-35 f/2.8L...

Yep. According to PhotoDo:

Grade: 3.5 35mm/AF Canon EF 20-35/2,8L discontinued

They don't have the 16-35 because PhotoDo is quite an old site. They do have the older 17-35, however..

Grade: 3.2 35mm/AF Canon EF 17-35/2,8L USM

The 16-35L is much better than the 17-35mm version. The 16-35L is suppoed to be excellent, i've heard nothing about the 20-35mm so i would suggest you stay with the 16-35L :-)

edit: on a side note i really like my 17-35mm Tamron ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 14:56:03.

05/20/2005 04:47:35 PM · #7

I recognize that the 16-35 I have now is better and more useful than the 20-35 but we're talking about $1000 here!

I guess I'll just stick with what I've got for now...I think...probably...