Hi

I have a 28-105mm USM lens and planning to get a 28-70L lens as a replacement. Another option that I am thinking is about keeping 28-105 and getting a wide angle L lens like 17-35. But the recent posting says that 17-35 is not as good as 28-70 or 70-200 L lenses. I have seen suggestions to look for 16-35 or 20-35 in other postings. But 16-35 is costly and 20-35 is out of production. Please give me your suggestions!

Sharath

-- Sharath (sharathblr2000@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002

Answers

Suggestions: 1) add more money to get the new 16-35 f/2.8L, 2) buy a used 20-35 f/2.8L, 3) settle for a new or used 17-35 f/2.8L, 4) buy a Nikon, Minolta or Pentax system, they have good wide lenses too.

Not many more options for top-of-the-line, wide zooms. By the way the 17-35 f/2.8L is a very good lens. It may not be as sharp as the 28-70 f/2.8L or the 70-200 f/2.8L (or f/4L), but it is very good. The 20-35 f/2.8L isn't noticeably better in the 20-35mm range, so that's not much of a solution. The 17-35 f/2.8L does add more distortion in the 17-20mm range though.

If you're really anal about lens quality, you need to stop looking at zooms. Canon's 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm lenses are all very good. Buy them all and be happy. :~))

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), May 15, 2002.

Okay. Keep the 28-105 and add a Canon EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 zoom. It's about $350-$400 US. Optically as good as the 17-35/2.8L (or about as good). It's a bit on the slow side.

Otherwise: Keep the 28-105 and add an EF 20/2.8 lens. It's about $400 US.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the 17-35/2.8L. Just because it is not as good as the 28-70L and the 70-200L lenses doesn't mean much. The 28-70 and 70-200 lenses are some of the finest performing zoom lenses ever made. Few lenses made are as good.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), May 19, 2002.

If you even THINK about getting an L lens, go and get it. New or used, there is no two ways about it. Which L to buy ? Well, this is more to do with the focal length you need and budget constrains. Also, some of the prime's optical quality rival that of L zooms at a lower price.

-- Yakim Peled (yakim.peled@orange.co.il), May 19, 2002.

That's exactly what I did.. I had the 28-105 sold it and bought the 28-70L...i had to save and sell a number of primes to get it and based on feedback here and at photographyreview.com I couldn't be happier...the lens is much heavier and harder to pack and travel with but the resulting pictures are worth it....don't think twice about it..DO It!

-- chuck lipton (chuxter31@adelphia.net), May 25, 2002.