Canon 20-35mm L!!!

gabers99 wrote in post #11821132
Is this now a discontinued canon lens? What was its replacement?

It was replaced with the 17-35 f/2.8L

Which was subsequently replaced with the 16-35 f/2.8L

Which was finally replaced with the 16-35 f/2.8L II

I bought the 20-35L lens when it first appeared as an EF in late 1989. I still have it & it has been a main workhorse for all those years. Currently used on a 1D4.

This lens has a very long history, the first version was
in February 1978 as a FD24-35mm f/3.5 S.S.C. Aspherical
http://www.canon.com …m/fd_24~35_35_s​sc_as.html
in December 1979 as a New FD24-35mm f/3.5L then
http://www.canon.com …a/zoom/nfd_24~3​5_35l.html
in April 1984 as a New FD20-35mm f/3.5L then
http://www.canon.com …a/zoom/nfd_20~3​5_35l.html
in October 1989 as a EF20-35mm f/2.8L then
http://www.canon.com …de_zoom/ef_20~3​5_28l.html
in April 1996 as a EF17-35mm f/2.8L USM then
http://www.canon.com …oom/ef_17~35_28​l_usm.html
in December 2001 as a EF16-35mm f/2.8L USM then
http://www.canon.com …oom/ef_16~35_28​l_usm.html
in April 2007 as a EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
http://www.canon.com …/ef_16~35_28l_i​i_usm.html

Loveeeeeeeeeeeeeee to hear the stories on this lens as I have quite an exciting one myself about it.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1000011

Could never see myself getting rid of this baby....A) because the price I bought it for, and B) It's just so usable on an FF like my 5Dc

Looks really nice, I have never even seen this lens. I feel the same way with lenses I keep considering going to f4 zooms to go with my primes. My primes even feel big and heavy sometimes and I almost never use my zooms but for me the 24-70 is such a great lens I find it hard to part with. I do agree about the 17-40 being a better buy compared to the 16-35.

The 24L is an amazing lens that I am just getting into. I never shot much wide but this lens gives a unique look.

I can't believe all the 16-35 hate.

Sorry, I tried the 17-40 and believe there is a comparison, especially if you need 2.8.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #12249509
I can't believe all the 16-35 hate.

Sorry, I tried the 17-40 and believe there is a comparison, especially if you need 2.8.

This is a true enough statement but I find a lot of people justifying their purchase otherwise by saying they wouldn't use the 2.8 on such a wide lens. I on the other hand disagree and would prefer the 16-35 over the 17-40......With this being said I'd also prefer a money tree to come out next time I go to the washroom then......well, you get the picture

There's a reason for the significant price difference, and if the 16-35 is your "bread and butter" lens I'd say it's worth it.

i've been thinking about picking this up or maybe even the newer 17-35 2.8
the hardest part is getting lenses close to focal lengths i've already got.
i need someone to convince not to get the 16-35L or any lens it descends from, hah

iwasinvertedx wrote in post #12249801
i've been thinking about picking this up or maybe even the newer 17-35 2.8
the hardest part is getting lenses close to focal lengths i've already got.
i need someone to convince not to get the 16-35L or any lens it descends from, hah

I hate to make your decision and harder but honestly with your current gear being 35L is your widest....the 20-35 would complement your range quite nicely if you were looking to go wider but still maintain a large aperture

Wow, cool lens!

I also was unaware of this lens. Great photos you've posted!

how much did this lens goes for in the 90's?

I paid $1250 AU in the early 2000 or so it is a stunning piece of glass