CANON 20-35mm USM

[Steve Parr]

I found this lens, used, at what I believe to be a fair price (with the lens hood included). I've been looking for a wider lens than the 50mm f/1.8, and this certainly fits the bill.

Anyone have one? Comments? Sample pictures?

Thanks!

Steve

[steibeldj]

This is the second lens I bought. I like the optical quality and the sharpness, however for my uses, I have a hard time in low light and blur f3.5 - 4.5?(but that has a lot to do with technique.) The lens was about $350 at Ritz.

For me, I love the 20mm on the 20d and don't want to go any lower, but I kind of wish it made it to 50mm. Build quality is good and it is somewhat compact.

[mikesd]

This is one of Canon's most underated lenses, at f/8 it has been known to be in the same league as the 17-40L. A great lens for the price!

[rdenney]

I found this lens, used, at what I believe to be a fair price (with the lens hood included). I've been looking for a wider lens than the 50mm f/1.8, and this certainly fits the bill.

Anyone have one? Comments? Sample pictures?


It's not real fast, but it makes excellent images and it handles well. I have not really been tempted to replace it with the 17-40L. I think it makes a great walking-around lens for the cameras with the small sensors, ranging from moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto. It does show a bit of barrel distortion wide open, but it's not objectionable.

You asked for images. Here's one at 35:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/boats-diamond-lake-lores.jpg

Here's one at 20:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/gorge-falls-lores.jpg

Here's one at 20 shot wide open:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/palace-dining-lores.jpg

If you want to invest your L dollars somewhere else, this lens does quite nicely in its focal range and when used carefully will deliver excellent images.

Rick "who still walks around with this lens" Denney

[Andy_T]

You might like to know that Canon also produced a 20-35/2.8 L that keeps coming up at eBay for a used price of 400~500$.

Best regards,
Andy

[Steve Parr]

This is the second lens I bought. I like the optical quality and the sharpness, however for my uses, I have a hard time in low light and blur f3.5 - 4.5?(but that has a lot to do with technique.) The lens was about $350 at Ritz.

For me, I love the 20mm on the 20d and don't want to go any lower, but I kind of wish it made it to 50mm. Build quality is good and it is somewhat compact.

Ritz quoted me a price the other night of $499.00.

What was sad was that the front element had more fingerprints than a crime scene, and they wouldn't budge on price.

I've found one used, very clean, with the the hood and shipping included, for $265.00. Fair, I think...

Steve

[Steve Parr]

Rick, thanks for posting those shots.

You know, I thought about the 17-40mm, and it just seems like an awful amount of money to spend for my non-critical eye. I know all the arguments in favor of it, and I may well end up giving myself a daily kick in the ass for not going that route, but I've heard enough positive things about the 20-35mm to tell me that it's a deal which I shouldn't let go by.

Thanks all...

Steve

[mdr]

I sold my 20-35mm USM as it wasn't wide enough when I got my 20D. It was a fantastic lens on my EOS3 though.

[Steve Parr]

I sold my 20-35mm USM as it wasn't wide enough when I got my 20D. It was a fantastic lens on my EOS3 though.

I'll be using it on my 300D. I just want something wider than the 50mm f/1.8 (I offed my kit lens a while ago). This looks like it'll fit the bill for me and, like I said, I've heard a lot of positive comments about it...

Steve

[mdr]

It is great lens and I can certainly recommend it. You won't regret getting it. For me, the 32-56mm effective lens on my 20D (as on your 300D) is not wide enough. That's the main reason I changed to the 17-40mm L, and even this is nowhere near the 20mm end of the 20-35mm lens on my EOS 3.

[steibeldj]

Ritz quoted me a price the other night of $499.00.

What was sad was that the front element had more fingerprints than a crime scene, and they wouldn't budge on price.

I've found one used, very clean, with the the hood and shipping included, for $265.00. Fair, I think...

Steve

Sorry, you are correct. I showed them a B&H ad and they bumped mine to $450, not $350. Mine was clean out of a brand new box. Got to tell you though, I was in a rush at the time. Should have gone to B&H as I now always do.

$265 with an almost $50 hood? Go for it.

[Todd Jacobsen]

I found this lens, used, at what I believe to be a fair price (with the lens hood included). I've been looking for a wider lens than the 50mm f/1.8, and this certainly fits the bill.

Anyone have one? Comments? Sample pictures?

Thanks!

Steve


Steve,

This was my first Canon lens purchase. I love it, but generally use it only with my film Rebel. Quality lens. Focus always seems to be spot on and I only shoot AF with it.

[rdenney]

It is great lens and I can certainly recommend it. You won't regret getting it. For me, the 32-56mm effective lens on my 20D (as on your 300D) is not wide enough. That's the main reason I changed to the 17-40mm L, and even this is nowhere near the 20mm end of the 20-35mm lens on my EOS 3.

That was what kept me with the 20-35. It's not an ultra-wide zoom on an APS sensor like it is with the full 35mm format. It's a moderate wide to slightly telephoto zoom--a good range for walking around. 17 was not much better. I would choose the 17-40 over the 20-35 only for the improved quality (which will be hard to see on the small sensor, but a little easier to see in the corners of the full frame if you also shoot film or will move to a big sensor)--the extra wide just isn't enough to be worth the cost. There's no way a lens of this range is going to dip into ultra-wide territory with the small sensor.

I already had a 14mm lens and I soon also had the 16mm fisheye, but ultimately I scratched the ultra-wide itch with a true ultra-wide zoom, the Sigma 12-24 (when I bought that the 10-22 wasn't available and wouldn't mount on my 10D anyway). I no longer am tempted to complain that the 20-35 doesn't go wide enough.

Rick "who thinks Steve's nifty fifty keeps the 20-35 from not being long enough" Denney

[pierrot]

Was one of my favorites when used on my EOS5, despite of its reduced range (20-35mm, that's a reach you can generally achieve in "zooming with your feet" only a fwe steps forward) :D

I sold it when I began to shoot digital, because on a 20d I have a better use of the 17-40mm.