PDA

View Full Version : 20-35 or 18-55 kit or wait for 17-40?

willg
24th of May 2005 (Tue), 14:12
I have the kit lens, but the rainbow flare issue doesn't allow me to take pictures at night very easily and i would like to so i have been looking for a replacement...i was thinking about the 17-40 but its sooooo expensive and i am still in school...it looks like the 20-35 sells pretty cheap on ebay and might be good..what do you think? is this lens worth it to replace the kit or should i wait for the 17-40?
mikesd
24th of May 2005 (Tue), 15:36
You always get what you pay for but the 20-35 is one of Canon's most underated lens. At the f/11 range it is capable of creating shots that can rival the 17-40 in sharpness.
willg
24th of May 2005 (Tue), 16:01
You always get what you pay for but the 20-35 is one of Canon's most underated lens. At the f/11 range it is capable of creating shots that can rival the 17-40 in sharpness.

good to hear...f/11 is kinda crazy but do you think fstop for fstop the 20-35 is superior to the kit lens?
mikesd
24th of May 2005 (Tue), 19:21
good to hear...f/11 is kinda crazy but do you think fstop for fstop the 20-35 is superior to the kit lens?


I have had both and I don't think there is any doubt, plus the 20-35 is usm. It focuses faster and quieter than the kit lens and has a metal mount. Yep it's pretty darn good lens!
iriches
25th of May 2005 (Wed), 08:03
good to hear...f/11 is kinda crazy but do you think fstop for fstop the 20-35 is superior to the kit lens?

Yes, at the frame edges. Look at http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/

If you scroll down to the "20mm" section, you'll see a comparison. In short, the 20-35mm is *much* better at the edges of the frame (better at f/4 than the kit lens is at f/8.)


At the centre of the frame, things are much of a muchness.
RbrtPtikLeoSeny
25th of May 2005 (Wed), 08:33
Hm, the canon 20-35mm isn't a bad lens, but I'd suggest you maybe take a look at the Tamron 17-35mm.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75488

It's $100.00 dollars more than the 20-35, but still far cheaper than the 17-40L and is said to definately rival the 17-40 in image quality. Also it's got a gaster apeture than the 20-35. That'd probably be pretty helpful for your night time shooting.
willg
25th of May 2005 (Wed), 15:47
Hm, the canon 20-35mm isn't a bad lens, but I'd suggest you maybe take a look at the Tamron 17-35mm.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75488

It's $100.00 dollars more than the 20-35, but still far cheaper than the 17-40L and is said to definately rival the 17-40 in image quality. Also it's got a gaster apeture than the 20-35. That'd probably be pretty helpful for your night time shooting.

wow...i didn't even consider that...i am too narrow minded...its a bit more expensive as i can find the 20-35 used on ebay for less, but definitely something to consider. how well do the tamron's hold their value?