17-35mm Zoom or 20-35mm Zoom

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Hi there

I'm going to buy a new lens and cannot decide between the 17-35L or the standard 20-35mm zoom.

Is it really worth the extra money for the letter L and the extra wideness.

Thanks.

Rick Young Digital Production, London

-- Rick Young (young@digitalproduction.net), August 29, 2001

Answers

Wow, Rick -- That's quite a question. I would guess that only you can answer that one. Have you seen the two lenses side by side? Why don't you take some photos with each, and see if you care to pay the steeper price for any noticeable difference in quality? 17mm is quite a bit wider than 20mm (at the wide end, small focal length changes make a big difference -- you wouldn't even notice 3mm at the other end), but maybe you don't need it? The 22-55 is inexpensive & compact, where the 17-35 is big, heavy & very expensive by comparison.

The 22-55 has a 90 to 43 degree angle of view, the 17-35 has a 104 to 63 degree angle of view.

The 22-55 has a USM micro-motor (not ring-type, no full time manual override). the 17-35 has ring-type USM (FTM, faster focusing [not as important on a superwide as on a supertelephoto).

The 22-55 has variable aperture f/4-5.6, the 17-35 has constant aperture f/2.8 (considerably faster lens).

The 22-55 weights 6.2 oz, versus the 17-35's 19.1 oz.

The 22-55 takes 58mm filters (very common), the 17-35 takes 77mm filters (very expensive).

The 17-35 has two replicated aspherical elements to help correct for aberations.

The 22-55 costs $120 US, the 17-35 costs $1,230 US (would you even spring for this?)

And just in case 17mm isn't quite enough for you, it's rumored that Canon will soon be replacing the 17-35mm f/2.8L USM with a 16-35 f/2.8L!

Good luck with your lens purchasing decision. As an aside, you might look at third party superwide zoom offerings, if that's the kind of photography you like. You may find a zoom with the right focal range & price to suit you from Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 30, 2001.


Rick,

I just noticed the "Digital Production" in your name. If you are using a D30, you may not notice the quality of the lens that cost ten times more. The digital EOS does not utilize the entire frame area of a 35mm SLR, and so issues such as edge sharpness, vigneting, etc. are going to be far less important.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 30, 2001.


Canon's 20-35 USM is nearly as sharp and distortion free as the 17- 35 "L". In fact the 17-35 exhibits a bit more distortion at 17mm, but then the 20-35 won't even get there.

If you don't need the extra f/stop and you don't need the extra 3mm, then get the 20-35 USM.

That extra 3mm does make a difference though. To me the decision came down to the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 HSM. I know the risks with third party lenses, but I was willing to take it for the extra 3mm. It's a remarkably good lens for the money.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), August 30, 2001.


Rick,

My sincere apologies. I read 20-35 & my brain misinterpreted to 20-55 (not even in the same class)! Now I see why you are struggling with your lens choice! Part of my confusion is due to it not being listed on the Canon USA website (the only 20-zoom listed is the 20-55). You undoubtedly already know that the 20-35 does indeed have USM & FTM, takes 77mm filters, & weighs 12 oz.

I've never handled the 20-35, so the following is hearsay (by all accounts it's a very good lens).

Zoom-net rates the lens just below the 17-35, and says that it has a high degree of distortion at 20mm (it also says that the 17-35 has a high degree of distortion at 17mm). The lens is otherwise well designed & very worthy. PhotoZone rates the lens just below the 17-35 f/2.8, & older 20-35 f/2.8. The Sigma 17- 35mm f/2.8-4 EX HSM also did fairly well. At $420 US, the Canon 20- 35mm represents quite a cost savings over the 17-35 f/2.8L – so unless you need that fast aperture or extra range, go with the 20- 35mm!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 30, 2001.


Dear Rick,

If you are using a D30 then it is worth to have the extra 3mm on the wide side. Using a factor of 1.6 on D30 I will get 27.2mm with 17-35L and 32mm with 20-35 on the widest side. There is a some difference between 27mm and 32mm. Since D30 only takes images from the central part of the lens, the distortion assoicated with 17-20mm on 17-35L is then gone. L does have better glasses if you shoot slides (Provia) with tripod you can learn the difference between the brothers under a loupe and a lamp box. Personally I use 20/2.8 and 35/1.4(Sumilux M) primes. Yes together they cost more than the 17-35L.

I would get the 20-35mm as I was told it was a very good lens, not only for its price but also compared to 17-35L, which is almost six years old. I wish the new version of the 17-35L will be improved to match or exceed Nikon's 17-35 AFS in terms of optics.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.



Rick,

I am fortunate enough to have both the 20-35 f3.5-4.5 USM lens and the Canon 20mm f2.8 USM lens. I recently used the 20-35 lens on a Canon D30 to photograph a visiting Chinese delegation at the college campus where I work. The 20-35 on the D30 came me a very nice "normal range zoom" equivalent to 32-56mm on a 35mm film body. It worked very well in close quarters as I followed the visitors around campus.

I also have found that the 20mm f2.8 is definitely sharper at the wider apertures as the 17-35 f2.8 L series lens should be. If you find that you are shooting at f5.6 to f11 you probably won't see much difference in quality between these two zoom lenses. If I need a true 20mm lens coverage, I stick either lens on my EOS3 and "revert" to film.

To me the extra 3mm of coverage has never been worth the price. I use my 20-35 for general use and switch the 20mm prime, which is a true rectilinear lens, when I am doing architectural work. I considered briefly selling both lenses which, with some luck in both selling and buying, would cover 75% or more of the price of the 17- 35mm lens. I liked the advantages, to me, of having two lenses.

You will have to decide for yourself if the 3mm is worth the price to you based on your needs, for me the answer is no.

-- Richard Snyder (rsnyder@lc.cc.il.us), September 02, 2001.


My 2 cents.

The Canon 20-35mm 'L' lens is now very affordable in the used market compared to its original new price due to its being replaced by the 17-35mm 'L'.

I have the 20-35mm 'L' and a Tokina 17mm f3.5 prime (NOT the 'Pro'). These two lenses, used and in excellent condition, cost about 200 to 300 dollars less than the 17-35mm 'L'. Both of my lenses use 72mm filters which I already had. The 20-35mm lens is FABULOUS! The Tokina, stopped down, is very good for my purposes.

-- Mark Elam (mjelam51@juno.com), October 02, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ