Thomas,
So you own both the 20 f/2.8 and the 20-35 L lens. Have you tried the 20-35
f/3.5-4.5?
Maybe you (and others) can help me choose between the 20mm and the Non-L
20-35 lens.
I already have the 28-135 IS Zoom, and I'm looking for a sharp and
contrasty wide angle lens, and can't decide between these two lenses.
Purpose of lens: Panoramas, New York City, flowers, funny close-up
portraits with wide deep views of scenery or buildings, etc...
Some people seem to imply that the 20-35 is as good as the 20mm, which
surprises me. This seems to be the case at 20mm according to the MTF graphs
on Photodo, while Photozone says the 20mm is superior to the 20-35, which
sounds natural to me.
I've tried them both, but the conditions were too different to be able to
really conclude, even though the 20 f/2.8 seemed somehow sharper than the
20-35 f/3.5-4.5, but there was more light when the first one was tested.
I'm going to NYC for Easter, and I must have chosen and ordered and
received the lens by then.
Thanks
Pierre
At 13:57 2/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>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.
>
>Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
