>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.
I have the 20-35 and I am quite satisfied. It's sharp for a zoom.
I tested the 20/2.8 before I bought the 20-35. What I did not like about it
was the amount of light falloff from the center to the edges. All 20mm
lenses have some light falloff, but this one is the worst that I have seen.
The 20/2.8 EF is worse than either the 20-35 zoom or the FD 20/2.8. I
tested all three against a evenly colored and lighted wall of my house and
you had to stop down to f/8 to get an evenly illuminated slide. The light
fall off of the 20/2.8 at f/5.6 is greater that the zoom (at 20mm) at f/4.
--Mike
~~ Michael Wood
~~ San Leandro, CA USA
~~ mwood at mykoweb dot com
~~ http://www.mykoweb.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
