I want to buy either the EF 3.5-4.5/20-35 or the Tokina 2.8/20-35. Several postings make me believe the EF optics are better though Tokina comes very close. Is the 2.8 of the Tokina worth the extra $$$ ? I shoot landscape, buildings and some action.

-- Denis Roy (droy@kellnerweg.de), January 10, 2001

Answers

Don't get either. Get a Canon L series lens. You won't look back.

-- michael King (action_photo_guy@hotmail.com), January 10, 2001.

I have the 20-35 and REALLY like it. The buildings and trees aren't going anywhere ;-) and you wouldn't normally shoot this stuff wide open anyway. I guess you have to decide if this is a lens that you'd find useful for action photography and if another stop would make a difference. It's pretty wide for my definition of action shots.

Paul

-- Paul Ferrara (paul@columbusoft.com), January 11, 2001.

I have a 17-35L lens. However, for general landscape photo, I find myself seldom using f2.8 or f3.5, and normally from f6.7 onwards even shooting Velvia.

I have no experience on the 20-35 f3.5-4.5. But be cautious on the camera body you use, if it happens to be EOS 3, then the L lens is more preferable 'cos in low light situation, a f4.5 lens may not focus well.

The 17-35L lens is very good. Especially the 17mm ends, it always helps to bring in unique perspective.

Cheers

-- Andrei Lau (alau37@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.

I have a 17-35/2.8L and it is a wonderful lens. You have to try it. It has great optics and worth the extra money. Well built and fast, the 2.8 comes in handy for low light situations.

-- Anthony Wong (anthwo@hotmail.com), February 08, 2001.

The EF 20-35 f3.5-4.5 is, IMHO, a truly great bargain and gives you more bang for your buck than just about any lens I can think of. It's plenty sharp, covers a very useful focal range, focusses quickly and silently, and can (mine, atleast) take some hard knocks. Sure, it has to suffer some in direct comparison to it's L cousin. I suppose if you like taking pictures of test targets or plan on making 20x30 inch enlargements, the L lens would be better. Maybe once a year I curse the fact that it's not a 2.8, but the rest of the time I'm very glad I pocketed the extra $1000. Flare control can be a problem but then the lens is a zoom with 12 elements and it's certainly acceptable. There is a small to moderate amount of barrel distortion at the shorter focal lengths, which is inconsequential for most shots but obviously a nuisance for architecture or any other shot with straight lines. However, most objective reviews I've read of the 17-35 L lens state that it also has some barrel distortion at shorter focal lengths and therefore isn't any better than the 20-35 f3.5-4.5 lens as far as that is concerned. All in all, I would not hesitate to recommend the EF 20-35 f3.5-4.5 - unless of course you've got $1400 burning a hole in you pocket!

-- Paul Tsong (paul.tsong@gte.net), February 18, 2001.

like the previous posters, i love the 17-35 2.8L. but i also have to agree that the 20-35/3.5-4.5 is the best bang for your money. pretty good distortion control, resonable price, but make sure you get the lens hood for it. i never recommend 3rd party lenses. if you shoot mainly landscape and buildings, you won't need the 2.8. i never recommend 3rd party lenses. another option is to find a used 20-35 2.8L... it doesn't have USM, but it's a great lens also...

-- howard (hshen@praxidigm.com), February 23, 2001.