-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 12:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EOS 20/2.8 vs 20-35/3.5-4.5
> Pierre Bellavance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think my first choice goes to the 20mm, but I would prefer the
> zoom if it's as sharp... which it probably can't be.
Hi Pierre,
Surprisingly, the MTF data from Photodo suggests that the
20-35/3.5-4.5 is very similar in optical performance to the
20/2.8
I saw in a local shop that the 20-35 has a flare-cutting diaphgram,
while the 20/2.8 does not. Even the close focussing is not so
different 0.8' for the prime, and 1.1' for the zoom.
I'm tending to favour the zoom, but have not had the opportunity
to shoot through either lens.
Any other thoughts are appreciated.
Cheers
Julian Loke
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
Julian,
"Flare cutting diaphgram", is that what they call the rectangular mask?
My lens list includes the 20-35/3.5-4.5, 35/2, 50/1.8 Mk. I, 85/1.8 ... BIG
GAP ... and the 300/4L. I haven't taken any enlargements on the 20-35 past
8x10 but from what I see, it holds its own against the rest of my primes. I
was originally leaning towards the 20 but a 20-35 came up for sale at a
prize I couldn't resist. As an aside, the 20-35 just won my wife their
company's yearbook cover contest. I'm thinking of rewarding her with a
missing must-have white zoom lens that perhaps I could borrow once in a
while (see BIG GAP) above ;-)
BTW, I use a slim Heliopan C-Pol with no problems.
James
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
