28mm f1.8 v s. 20-35mm f3.5

[boomerang]

Hey guys I have a 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8.
Using the rebel xt im looking for a wider lense for family pictures and some wide angle shots. I dont mind prime but was wondering if the 20-35 was worth looking into?

Thanks

[ScottE]

I had 20-35/3.5-4.5. It was a good lens, but not as good as the 17-40 that I replaced it with.

Scott

[boomerang]

Do you notice much difference from the 3.5 to 4.0?
Also the price difference is almost double in your opinion is it twice as good of a lens?

thanks for the info.

[cactusclay]

I would think that at almost 400 bucks after a filter and shipping, that you could get a much nicer build quaity and better optics for a hundred and fifty more, buy buying a used 17-40.

[cactusclay]

I was looking at the reveiews on the 28/1.8 and I think the 24/2.8 had better rankings, but someone here recently got 28/1.8 and seemed to be happy with it. You have two pro grade lenses now, If it were me, I would stick with the better glass, because you are likely to be disappointed with a consumer zoom after shooting with a 50/1.4 and a 85/1.8.

[ScottE]

Do you notice much difference from the 3.5 to 4.0?
Also the price difference is almost double in your opinion is it twice as good of a lens?

thanks for the info.

I was reasonably happy with the 20-35/3.5-4.5 when I used it on my film cameras, but thought it looked a little soft on digital cameras with a 1.6x cropping factor. With the 17-40/4 you can see a small improvement if you make big enlargements.

My main problem with the 20-35 was that I used it on film cameras and liked the wide angles it provided, but found it frustrating that it would not go wide enough on the digital cameras. I replaced it with the 17-40 for that reason more than for image quality. On the other hand, even the 17-40 does not really go wide enough and I have ordered a 10-22. I won't know until I have used both lenses for while which of those two I prefer.

It's not a question of whether the 17-40 is twice as good as the 20-35. Their both good lenses although the 17-40 is a littl better. It's whether it will do the job you need it for.

Scott

[boomerang]

would you go for the 24 2.8 or the 17-40mm

which will have the better glass and image quality.

I dont mind using the primes, But I like the 17-40mm from what people have posted and am leaning towards that one.

[cactusclay]

I've read that the 17-40 and 16-35 are pretty close to the same quality as primes in that range, with the exception of the L primes, but primes may still have a slight edge. I have a 17-40 used for sale on the market place, if you are intested.

[Mike H]

I have the 28/1.8, as well as the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 that you own now. Together they constitute my "speed group". It's a reasonably sharp lens; a couple of my most memorable shots were taken with it.

Whether you should get that or one of the zooms comes down to whether you need the extra speed or the zoom range more. Have a look at what you shoot and what you plan to shoot in the future in deciding. While great glass is a joy to own and shoot, it doesn't help if it's the wrong lens. For example, I once had a chance to make a quick shot in low light of a coach talking to his basketball team in a critical game situation, and the f/1.8 setting made it possible (there was no time to set up a tripod). The best f/4 L lens would have gotten an inferior shot (since I would have had to really crank up the ISO to make up a little more than 2 stops).

I hope this helps.

Mike H

[boomerang]

Thank you mike, I think the 28/1.8 is what I am looking for, the zoom range on the 17-40 isnt enough for me to spend the money. And honestly I like the speed and also like working with primes it almost forces me to think more about my composition and shots.

I shoot for fun- my family and friends and low light usually comes up indoors so I would prefer the speed.

Thanks for your input!

[Mike H]

You're welcome. My family and friends sometimes end up needing low light work, too.

Mike H

[roanjohn]

Prime > Zoom.......go for the 28.

Ro1