| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2012 12:13:34 PM · #1 |
question for you all...
did some research on this lens.
is it a good lens and what would be a good price? |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 12:26:08 PM · #2 |
it came out in 1989
id never heard of it till you posted this, ive got an old 28-70 2.8 L but thats a 2000
found this on the net
pmazolo:
I have just abought a Canon 1Ds and some lenses. Among them a used 20-35/2.8L that seems pretty bad. Now, I would like to know if someone tested this on a 1Ds and know if its my individual thats bad or if "this is as good as they get". I find several problems with the lens, but most visible is the dramatic corner unsharpness at 20/2.8 that seems to come almost along a well defined circular line in the image area... Could this be a problem with the combination with the 1Ds sensor?
oward smith:
pmazolo, I used to have a 20-35. Someone broke into my truck and stole all the camera gear inside, except that lens. They took it off the body and tossed it in the back. Not even worth stealing.
//www.ebay.com/ctg/Canon-EF-20-mm-35-mm-F-2-8-L-Lens-/101699709
This very old design L glass zoom was a total disappointment. The image in the corners using a full frame Canon 5D is just awful wide open and only gets acceptable at f/16. At f/16 and f/22 diffraction softens the central image, so it is a bad trade-off. I returned this lens and later purchased a Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 Distagon T* ZE lens. Though the Zeiss is a manual focus prime lens, everything else works on any EOS body, including green "in focus" light and beep. Forget this Canon lens, unless you are only going to use it on a 1.6X crop body.
Message edited by author 2012-11-14 12:27:54. |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 12:34:40 PM · #3 |
| Ken Rockwell and Fred Miranda seemed to have good reviews. didn't know if anyone owned one/used one. |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 12:39:10 PM · #4 |
ken rockwell is a nbok(rearrange) head only personal opinion like :)
try it on your body and see, only way to tell
google or search on flikr fro photo of that lens on your body to see the results |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 12:41:00 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 12:42:25 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
ken rockwell is a nbok(rearrange) head only personal opinion like :)
try it on your body and see, only way to tell
google or search on flikr fro photo of that lens on your body to see the results |
hubby found one...
if its what I think... its an employee he works with, who has been into photography heavily for 20+ years, so I know it would have been well taken care of. currently price is $450... could probably talk down to $350-$400 though. he wants a new lens and is getting rid of a few old ones. this being one.
so I would be able to test out prior to buying. |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 12:53:31 PM · #7 |
not sure about the range.
what do you want it for? the range seems odd on a crop, it scales equivalently to 32-56 on a crop. i imagine it would be more useful on a FF.
id think you'd be able to find a newer lens with comparable IQ that has a better range. for instance a tamron 17-50 non VC $300-$350 used, comes in a stabilized form too but i hear the non VC version is much sharper.
Message edited by author 2012-11-14 12:55:43. |
|
|
|
11/14/2012 01:08:03 PM · #8 |
I would suggest saving your money and going for the 17-40 f4. The focal length range is much better (that 3mm on the wide end makes a big difference). You would be giving up f2.8 for f4, but from the looks of it the image quality should be much greater.
Keh.com has one in EX+ condition for $665 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/31/2025 10:06:19 PM EDT.
