M.J.Shupe wrote:
[...]
> I have been toying with the
> idea of a 20/28 or possibly a 24 TSE. But, really, the performance on
> all three of these lenses is fairly dismal (and is not much better on
> the 17-35L or the older 20-35L). Certainly not up to the standards set
> by Canon's longer lenses. This is probably due to the retrofocus design
> required by the SLR design (mirror clearance).
Yes, the L teles perform better. But you make it sound a lot worse than
it is. Certainly, the performance of the 20mm and also the 24 TSE is not
dismal. I own the 20mm and can tell you it is really better than the
20-35L (which I also own). The 20mm if sharp to the corners, the zoom
isn't. I can also not see any extreme light falloff that someone else
reported. It's certainly less than with a classical, non retrofocus
design.
>
> All the specs above are from memory of Photodo when i was researching
> this last month. Sorry for any incorrect numbers.
Don't give Photodo too much weight. While I don't think they cheat,
their numbers are flawed. The only thing that is useable is the MTF
value in the center. Off center values are actually a mix of sharpness
and field flatness, which is useless or at least not important for
anything but reproductions or pictures of walls.
I'd propose to try the lenses out yourself, you might be pleasantly
surprised.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
