willg Senior Member  895 posts Joined Mar 2005 Location: Decatur, IL More info | May 24, 2005 14:12 | #1 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? 5D, 300D, Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, Canon 70-200mm f/4, 135mm f/2, 24-105mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma ef 500 dg super, Canon 580EX
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mikesd Senior Member  893 posts Joined Mar 2004 Location: Olney Illinois,home of the white squirrels More info | May 24, 2005 15:36 | #2 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. 50D, 10D, XT, S3 IS, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 18-200, 18-55, 430EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mikesd wrote: 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? 5D, 300D, Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, Canon 70-200mm f/4, 135mm f/2, 24-105mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma ef 500 dg super, Canon 580EX
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mikesd Senior Member 893 posts Joined Mar 2004 Location: Olney Illinois,home of the white squirrels More info | willg wrote: 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! 50D, 10D, XT, S3 IS, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 18-200, 18-55, 430EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
iriches Member 81 posts Joined Apr 2005 Location: UK More info | willg wrote: 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/ Ian Riches - Bedford, UK.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RbrtPtikLeoSeny My love, my baby 2,482 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Mont Vernon, NH More info | May 25, 2005 08:33 | #6 Hm, the canon 20-35mm isn't a bad lens, but I'd suggest you maybe take a look at the Tamron 17-35mm.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RbrtPtikLeoSeny wrote: Hm, the canon 20-35mm isn't a bad lens, but I'd suggest you maybe take a look at the Tamron 17-35mm. https://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? 5D, 300D, Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, Canon 70-200mm f/4, 135mm f/2, 24-105mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma ef 500 dg super, Canon 580EX
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Thunderstream 1032 guests, 111 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
