Is it worth upgrading from 20-35L to 16-35L?

[oliver]

I have an EF 20-35mm 2.8L and have had it for many years. I am quite happy with it, but could use something a little wider. Is the 16-35 2.8L a big improvement or not. I am planning on upgrading the camera from a D30 to a 1Ds.

[PaulB]

Be aware that the 16-35/2.8 and the 1Ds CAN have a problem.
It seems that the angle that the light from the rear element hits the sensor CAN cause chromatic aberation in the very corners of the frame on the 1Ds. Note - not will but can under some circumstances.
This is caused by the depth of the pixel 'well' and/or the prismatic lens over the pixel 'well' - as I understand it, and I'm not 100% sure I do........
However the 17-40/4 does not suffer in this way - designed differently, (on purpose?).
Because of the 1.3 and 1.6 multipliers on the 1D and 10D the 16-35/2.8 behaves impecably.

Try before you buy - aim the lens at something just outside the frame - sun/spotlight, to cause flare and see how the setup reacts.

Otherwise the 10-35/2.8, from ,my experience, is a superb performer and better than the 17-35/2.8

[oliver]

I thought that the 16-35 was designed with digital cameras in mind. How bad is the chromatic aberration. Is it very subtle or is absolutely obvious. I am not a professional photographer and don't care that much if I get an occasional funny looking picture, but I would like to get as much field of view as possible with my lens.

[Hyperfish]

oliver wrote:
I have an EF 20-35mm 2.8L and have had it for many years. I am quite happy with it, but could use something a little wider. Is the 16-35 2.8L a big improvement or not. I am planning on upgrading the camera from a D30 to a 1Ds.

Hi Oliver-

That's a tough call. I sold my 20-35mm f/2.8L for the 16-35mm f/2.8L. (1D)

If you absolutely MUST have the the extra 4mm on the short end, the answer is obvious. IMHO, on a 10D/D60/30 that 4mm is more critical than on the 1D/1Ds.

Reviewing my shots taken with both lenses, the 20-35mm (at least my copy, YMMV) is every bit as crisp with great color/contrast.

Both have barrel distortion on the wide end, (as expected) both have slight pin cushion distortion as well.

The two biggest advantages the 16-35mm has are USM & a shorter minimum focusing distance. The USM wasn't a big deal for me on short glass, the shorter MFD is what I was after.

Bottom line, I would recommend you rent a 16-35mm & see for yourself before selling your 20-35mm. If I would have done that & IF I didn't get a decent price when I sold the 20-35mm I probably would NOT have let mine go...

[nsxpower]

I've heard too many bad things about 16-35L. I suppose 16mm WA would be nice, but unless you need to go that wide I would stick w/ 20-35L. Also w/ 1Ds you will be getting 20mm, since there is no 1.6x multiplier to worry about. The multiplier problem is the only reason I am going for a Sigma 15-30 F.35-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF, which was designed w/ digitals in mind as well.

[martcol]

If you are upgrading to the 1Ds, won't that give you a little extra wide anyway because of the full-frame sensor?

Martin

[Photo-4N6]

Not to confuse the issue further, but this is fine glass! I had problems with the Sigma because I use the lens in rough environments and had no means of protecting the front of the lens (beyond the hood).

Lens speed was that critical for my work, so the new Canon lens is great. I have found little distortion using it with my 10D. You might see some with the larger sensor, but it's definitely worth a look.

Ken