Support
You can support this site without any cost or disadvantage at all by clicking this link to Amazon or the one on the left before buying anything – be it underpants, a cupboard, a TV, a pen, a lens or a camera. Amazon is the only shop worldwide, I’m really satisfied with to a 100%, so I have no caveats advertising them. Of course, you can also directly donate a small amount of money, e.g. the amount you would have spent for a magazine, with the button on the left.
Canon EF 20-35mm 1:2.8 L
A Canon L lens. Normally that's enough for most people. But this one's a bit special, as it is a very first generation L-lens, from the very beginning of the EOS-era, without USM but a conventional arc-form-drive motor, the ultra-wide-brother of the legendary 80-200/2.8L, if you want ... and Canons sharpest ultrawide-zoom of all and of all times, at any price. This does make perfect sense, since the 80-200/2.8L from the same era is said to be (at least one of) Canons sharpest tele-zoom of all times.
This, of course, is only for my sample compared to the samples of other Canon ultrawides I have used so far. But mine is already very sharp in the extreme corners at 20mm and f/2.8. It's biggest problem is a very heavily curved focus field, so you can never get the center and the extreme corners of a flat subject in perfect focus, regardless of the aperture used - for example, if an object in the center is focussed perfectly at aprox. 4m, you have to set it to 0.8m to get the extreme corner in perfect focus. It makes this even harder to handle, that it affects only the very last parts of the corner with a very hard drop or a very steep "sharpness"-curve away from you, if you want. Just a few pixels closer to the center, the focus distance is nearly identical to the center. But that's normally not a problem with an ultrawide, because you do never shoot flat subjects or landscapes with objects at the same distance with an ultrawide, especially not at f/2.8.
This is a lens built like you expect an L-lens to be. In fact it's feels more solid than any newer model, including the extremely expensive 16-35 II, being completely built of metal without the slightest play in any part, except for the AF/MF-switch maybe, and still extremely smooth operating zoom- and MF-rings. The focus-ring even decouples in AF-mode, but without USM, of course, there is no instant manual override.
It takes very moderate 72mm filters and looks and handles really well with a 77mm step-up-ring.
To make it short: I didn't want it, it was a real steal in a bundle with a camera and being sold as defective, I don't need it, because I have covered this range with other lenses, I could really use the money, because my car needs a new cam-belt, but I still keep it. It's my very first own L-lens in fact! Whehew!
COMPATIBILITY
As a classic EF - lens, it mounts on every EOS - body ever made, be it 35mm film, APS, digital APS-C or "fullframe". On APS-C, the smaller sensor of these cameras let's this lens have an angle of view like a 32-56mm-lens would have on 35mm, which is silly - I'd use a kit-lens instead.
PRICE
Prices are quite high for such an old lens. OK, L-lenses are always expensive, even when old, but it sells for well above € 300,- while the 17-40L starts at around € 400,- in good condition - and this 20-35 sometimes even goes above this price! There are a lot of "buy-it-now" - offers for around € 450,- that actually sell! But that's mostly in very good condition and probably bought by collectors.
It's very dependend on supply and demand, though, as it is really rare and at the same time there aren't unlimited people searching for one, so you have a chance of being lucky from time to time. In fact I didn't know that such a lens exists at all, until I saw it on ebay and even then I had to google a bit to really believe that the seller described it right and didn't talk about the 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM (non-L).
This lens is my best ebay-buy ever: I got it in a bundle with an old EOS 300D, both described as defective but both working just perfect, despite the fact, that I had to glue the AF/MF-switch of the lens back together, which was broken into two parts, for € 120,-. Together, both working perfectly. It was a "Buy-it-now" - offer, starting on a sunday at 01:45a.m.. I was lucky to look at the ebay-app on my smartphone while being at a very boring party, only partly drunk ;-)
ACCESSORIES
I got it with all the original packaging, including the shade, the paperwork and even a nice leather-case, which is not the original one, but one size smaller, that fits perfectly WITHOUT the shade. Perfect for me, as I never use shades. The lens is very compact and fits in any normal bag and wide-angle-shades are so wide, that they feel like doubling the size, so it's not an option for me.
It takes really moderate 72mm filters and looks and works great with a 77mm step-up-ring.
The filter-thread does not rotate, so using grads is a joy, polarizers can't be used with ultrawides.
GREAT! Absolutely high-class.
MECHANICS
Made in Japan.
Metal lens mount.
Made of metal.
Great.
Only the AF/MF-switch does not "click" as great as it could be, but mine is glued together, so maybe this is even better when new. The rest is extraordinary. Nothing has any play, everything turns and handles extremely smoot and fantastic, feels solid but not heavy, nothing moves, even the decoupled-in-AF focus-ring is dampened... WOW! This is one of the best-feeling lenses I have ever used, including the old Leica-equipment of my father.
A real pro-grade-lens, satisfying any demand. If this isn't good enough, I don't understand you.
AF - speed, even if not USM-driven, is very high. But of course it's comparitively loud. Not as loud as old Sigmas or old non-L-lenses like the 35/2, but worlds from the modern ring-USM.
AF accuracy is very good with my lens, nearly dead-on with all of my bodies.
During automatic focussing, the focus ring detaches.
The manual focus-ring feels really smooth and dampened.
Zoom-action is smooth and a bit stiff, but still turnable by one finger, just enough to feel solid.
Again: WOW!
ERGONOMICS
Perfect, apart from the missing instant manual focus override. It feels light and small, but still extremely solid. Size DOES matter, also see Lenses: What's important?. I hold it right intuitively, gripping it exactly right to zoom. The focus-ring is detached, but is easily reachable without changing the holding-position. The damped MF feels great.
You can hold a body with this lens in one hand. It fits in my usual bags.
It has no instant manual override. To switch between AF and MF you have to turn a switch.
There is a focus-scale behind a window with infrared-focus-indices but no depth-of-field-scale.
Overall: Great for it's age.
OPTICS
Optics of this L are fantastic, better than any other Canon ultrawide I have ever used, at any price.
The minimum focus distance is 0.5m, which is still OK, but not great for an ultrawide - it's enough at 20mm, but most likely wouldn't be at 16mm.
I expected distortion to be massive, but surprisingly, it is still quite OK. In fact it is really OK for an ultrawide and definitely better that the 17-40L, with visible but moderate barrel on the wide end and - also surprisingly - only changing to very slight pincushion on the long end. It has a quite uniform, easy to correct distortion-characteristics.
The plane of focus is massively curved outwards, you have to focus closer to get the borders in best focus. Nearly all ultrawides suffer from such characteritics, but it's really pronounced in this lens. In fact it seems to be hard, if not impossible, to get a flat subject completely in focus from the center to the corners... but of course, you never shoot flat subjects or landscapes with a uniform focus-point with an ultrawide, if you aren't a complete idiot. If you really have to shoot such things, pick a longer lens, trust me.
Again, this is quite common with ultrawides, but I still find it annoying and the 17-40L is better ... what doesn't help the 17-40 corners, of course, which are simply bad, regardless of the focus-setting.
To show you the massive amount of field-curvature at f/2.8 (at it's worst):
This is 20mm @ f/2.8, focused to the center.
And the same setting focussed on the last corner visible in live-view, which isn't really the extreme corner on the 5D Mark II. The extreme corner even gets sharper than this, if you focus even closer "by feel". Please excuse the non-matching crop, I took this test-shot for a different reason originally...
It makes this even harder to handle, that it affects only the very last parts of the corner with a very hard drop or a very steep "sharpness-curve" away from you, if you want. Just a few pixels closer to the center, the focus distance is nearly identical to the center. Here's a 50% Crop, 20mm f/2.8:
This, again, is the extreme top left corner, also focussed at via life-view. See how much out of focus the projector on the right or even the vertical bar of the shelf is? To make this clear: The projector is about 200 pixels closer to the center, the bottle is in the corner. And to clarify the amount: If an object in the center is focussed perfectly at aprox. 4m, you have to set it to 0.8m to get the extreme corner in perfect focus
Vignetting is bad at 20mm and f/2.8 not visible at any other setting. At it's worst, 20mm f/2.8, it is quite uniform, until the brightness of the very last corners drops significantly to maybe 2 or even 3 stops darker than the rest, as expected. This, to some degree, is a purely physical problem with a fullframe-sensor and of course not visible on APS-C.
The aperture is made of 6 blades, giving you surprisingly smooth out-of-focus highlights with not-so-great 6-ray-light-stars. The bokeh, surely not a main application for such a lens, is extraordinary at f/2.8, which is why I mention it nonetheless. Backgrounds turn to a smooth and silky carpet of floating colors. I haven't seen something like this from an ultrawide and even less so from a lens with only 6 aperture-blades.
This lens is very good for infrared-photography, without any hotspot.
While I think, that a lens less prone to flare and especially ghosting is not always better, as at least ghosts can be a very nice tool to show the lighting conditions in your pictures, this 20-35mm isn't overly prone to flare, even though it has a quite a big and bulbed front-element, so has a higher possibility of catching light-reflexes, that other lenses have. Well, even when it flares, you do only get some orange or red ghosts and the picture doesn't "glow out", making it unusable due to loosing contrast. Gladly, lamps, the moon, candles or similar light-sources in the dark aren't a problem and you can always avoid it by changing the angle a bit. Maybe it's a bit worse than a 17-40L.
It's color reproduction seems to match my other Canon EF and third-party lenses.
Lateral CAs (purple/green fringes along high-contrast edges) are visible and can reach a width of maybe just below two pixels, I'd estimate. The 16-35L and 17-40L are a bit better, but not by much. Not unsual for an ultrawide, but this has to be corrected in post-processing, otherwise it's annoying.
Sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities of lenses. That being said, this lens is the sharpest Canon ultrawide I have ever used - IF you compensate for the field-curvature. Then it is extremely sharp even at 20mm and f/2.8. Field curvature gets better, and so the general perception more uniform, towards 35mm, and, the next surprise, it does not seem to loose any overall sharpness here. Of course, it also gets better when stopped down a bit.
I have already shown samples for field-curvature, so here are just two more samples, the left one at 20mm f/2.8 focussed correctly, extreme top left corner (also focussed at), and on the right 35mm f//2.8, also the extreme top-left corner:
My sample of this lens is centered perfectly.
This is an extraordinary lens, a real gem from the good-old days.
ALTERNATIVES
There are the usual alternatives, but it's great. I probably wouldn't buy it for € 450,- because I'd prefer the bigger range of the 17-40L, but if you need f/2.8 or simply a great ultrawide, it's great.
The Cosina (Soligor, Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina, Bower, and so on) 19-35mm - lenses are nearly as sharp and only a bit slower on the wide end, as 2.8 vs. 3.5 is not significant. These don't have more distortion or vignetting and take 77mm - filters and are A LOT cheaper normally.
Well, what should I say, I have kept it and love it!
My first L-lens!
A word about supporting this site
I don’t run this site to earn money. I have a real job to earn my living with, a completely normal job. Since everything I write about here I have bought myself, for myself and with my own money from normal shops or ebay-sellers to actually use it, how much and what I am able to write about , depends on the amount of money that I can save and invest in equipment with good conscience. I share all this, because I want to, not to sell it. But when you find this helpful, maybe even as helpful as buying a magazine or book, of course you can support me, if you want. Your benefit is, that you help me being able to afford things to write about here.
You can use the “Donate” – button on the left to directly send a small amount of money (or a big amount, if you insist). You don’t need a paypal account to do so, every method is possible. If you decide to donate 99 cents, I’m thankful for it, because 10 people being as kind as you, make one new filter tested! The default currency is US $, but it works well with € or nearly any other currency, too.
But even more simple and without any cost or other disadvantage at all it is, to simply use this link to Amazon (or the one on the left) before buying anything there. For you it’s exactly the same as going there directly by typing the web-adress in your browser, you just klick this link first! It doesn’t matter, what you buy or where in the world you buy it, be it underpants, a pen, a cupboard, a lens or a Leica M9, be it in Germany, the USA, the UK or Australia: Amazon’s servers simply realize, that you came there through the link on my page and I get a small percentage of anything you buy FROM THEM. There’s absolutely no cost or other disadvantage for you, Amazon simply pays for my “advertisement” through this. I originally didn’t want to ever do any advertising personally. But then I decided to break this rule for Amazon. I’m a completely satisfied customer and buy everything from them. It’s the only shop in the world I would personally and on my private basis really rate a complete 100% in every regard. They have perfect service, even do call you back, answer emails with real, personal writing, extremely fast delivery even on Christmas-day, always perfect and completely new items, are never considerably more expensive than the very cheapest internet-sellers, have an extremely fast refund-system without being picky or having ever displeased me in any way and sell every good I have ever wanted to buy. They work on a completely different level than any retailer I have ever tried, and deliver it directly to me, without robbing me time and money to drive to the city or mall. I wouldn’t advertise them, if I wasn’t convinced, that it is OK to do so.