Almost bought a 20yo 20-35 2.8L untill I saw this... again looking for a wideangle...

I read mixed reviews about the 20 year old 20-35 2.8L, first a lot positive and I followed an Ebay auction.
Today I was excited to place a bid, read some more reviews, but today more negative till the last minute of the auction and then I saw this review with pics of very bad corner sharpness :
http://www.brinda.com …-35-l-vs-canon-24-10.html

I know uwa zooms never have sharp corners (even the 16-35 II is not perfect either) but on the 20-35 2.8L it seems very bad (see the grass picture right corner).
It's f2.8, but I think the Canon 17-40L or 16-35 I would have better corner sharpness than this 20-35 2.8L, no?

Ideal would be a 17mm prime but don't thrust Tokina stuff...
So still in quest for a good price/quality UWA, probably again the 17-40L or 16-35L I (II too expensive for what it is).

You're willing to buy a 20 year old lens off eBay but "don't trust" new Tokinas?

Tokinas are well built.

I tend to regard statements like "the corners are soft" with some skepticism. It's quite common for wide angle lenses to have considerable field curvature - this means that the the corners can be blurred simply because the lens does not suit the subject. I've certainly noticed this with several of my high end lenses.

On the other hand, it's usually important that a lens exhibits a flat enough field when focusing at infinity - some do and some do not. (By flat enough I mean at say f/5.6 or f/8 which is presumably where you would want to extract the most from a landscape.) This isn't to say that some lenses do not suffer from aberrations when wide open - some _are_ truly diabolical. Nevertheless, I hold to this rule of thumb - at f/8 almost every lens performs like a Zeiss.

On your choices - provided you're willing to put up with manual focus, there are plenty of elderly but very inexpensive lenses available. If you need a 17mm f/2.8 your options are few but if you can live with a 17/4 you'll be able to find something quite usable for under $150.

No one is going to give a damn about soft corners if your pictures are composed well.

Just get what range will suit you (and your budget) best.

Based on your gear list, I assume you could afford a 24mm L II?

I'd suppose that you'd get better bang-for-your-buck sharpness with a prime if that's what you're seeking. Every lens has a different character to it. I have the Sigma 12-24mm and though it's well known for being not particularly sharp at the corners, I've found that I can get very sharp corners at about f/20, but you have to keep in mind that this is dependant on your composition. If youre in a smallish area and are photographing something far away, then you would have things that are just a foot or so in front of you while also having the center (at which you're probably locking focus) 50 feet away. Kinda hard to get that much depth into focus.

No i'm broke, invested in the best lenses (all second hand) and just saved for a 17-40 (or other likewise priced UWA) or my wife will trow me out

bamatt wrote in post #14663451
Based on your gear list, I assume you could afford a 24mm L II?

Yes I also thought of a prime, the 24 1.4L is not wide enough (not really UWA), the 20 2.8 seems a better range but it gets only 7.5/10 on fredmiranda which is a representative website http://www.fredmiranda​.com …ct=28&sort=7&ca​t=2&page=1

Canon has no other option for a fast wide affordable prime pity enough.
Therefore my only options were 20-35 2.8L (12y old) or 17-40 f4L
I found a reasonable cheap 17-40 for 500 USD, mostly they ask 566 USD second hand over here.

===> If you have suggestions for a third party brand UWA prime (between 16 and 20mm), let me know
Sigma 14 2.8 seems too wide and Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG hasn't got a good score either.
The Tamron SP AF14MM F/2.8 Aspherical has 8.8/10 and Tokina AT-X 17 AF PRO 17mm f/3.5 has highest 9.2/10 (but only 13 reviews).

Tokina seems best at the moment... don't you find 14mm too wide on Fullframe, for buildings inside for example?

Logicus wrote in post #14663708
I'd suppose that you'd get better bang-for-your-buck sharpness with a prime if that's what you're seeking. Every lens has a different character to it. I have the Sigma 12-24mm and though it's well known for being not particularly sharp at the corners, I've found that I can get very sharp corners at about f/20, but you have to keep in mind that this is dependant on your composition. If youre in a smallish area and are photographing something far away, then you would have things that are just a foot or so in front of you while also having the center (at which you're probably locking focus) 50 feet away. Kinda hard to get that much depth into focus.

Viva-photography wrote in post #14663394
No one is going to give a damn about soft corners if your pictures are composed well.

Just get what range will suit you (and your budget) best.

WOW!
Now you are talking. Pretty brave on this forum. Kudos!

(Last time I cared about sharp corners was when I glued some softeners on IKEA sofa tables so that my grandchildren would not hurt themselves.)

CanonYouCan wrote in post #14668733
Sigma 14 2.8 seems too wide and Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG hasn't got a good score either.
The Tamron SP AF14MM F/2.8 Aspherical has 8.8/10 and Tokina AT-X 17 AF PRO 17mm f/3.5 has highest 9.2/10 (but only 13 reviews).

Tokina seems best at the moment... don't you find 14mm too wide on Fullframe, for buildings inside for example?

14mm is insanely wide on full frame.
I used to own the Tamron 14/2.8 but I sold it as I never found it to be sharp enough in the center or corners at any aperture. Maybe I got a bad copy, but that's something to look out for.

I picked up a 17-40 yesterday, and it seems to be much sharper than the Tamron - though obviously not as crazily wide.