Canon EF 20-35/2.8L: Oldie but Goodie ???

[JumboShrimp]

Have been tempted recently to purchase one of these (used, of course, since it is about 25 years old) and wonder if anyone out there still has one and can offer some first-hand experience. Mostly interested if you can compare it to the current 17-40 or similar-range lenses. This 20-35 lens appeals to me due to its light weight, compact proportions, and f/2.8 constant aperture. And it's available for about $600. FWIW department, our good friend, Ken Rockwell, really likes this one: http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm-f28.htm

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I have the 20-35 non l 3.5-4.5 lens if the l is even better then the non l it will be a wonderful lens. I did most of my photos with that lens when I went to japan last year on a crop body all I can say if its it great shape most likely a huge winner

 

[pwp]

If you have the opportunity to test-drive, by all means give it a try. On the down-side, a lens this old is unlikely to still be supported by CPS repairs. Also, some older pre-digital lenses can be ruthlessly punished by modern sensors, particularly FF. An old lens sitting unused for extended periods may have issues with internal lubricants thickening up.

I would have thought $600 was a big ask, regardless of condition. For that money, I'm sure there are more viable alternatives around. Check how much a new 17-40 f/4 costs. While it's a bit mushy wide open, it's a fantastic lens that can outperform the 16-35 f/2.8II between f/5.6-11.

Without getting into yet another Ken Rockwell opinion fueled thread...seriously, I'd take his often entertaining, spontaneous viewpoints with a cautious grain of salt.

-pw

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a step up from a consumer lens, but you can buy one on ebay for $350-$400. $600 is for suckers.

 

[Sporgon]

Have been tempted recently to purchase one of these (used, of course, since it is about 25 years old) and wonder if anyone out there still has one and can offer some first-hand experience. Mostly interested if you can compare it to the current 17-40 or similar-range lenses. This 20-35 lens appeals to me due to its light weight, compact proportions, and f/2.8 constant aperture. And it's available for about $600. FWIW department, our good friend, Ken Rockwell, really likes this one: http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm-f28.htm

It's not light weight ! At wide apertures more separation, glassy - liquid that 17-40. Otherwise not as good. Corners pretty dire on FF by modern standard. I'm attaching a shot at 24mm f/8, and you can see the corners go to blur.