F�lix L�pez de Maturana wrote:
Peter if I remember well old 20-35 was not USM although it was internal
focusing, really strange in a wide zoom. Having owned one I can ensure that
is better under sharpness point of view but with bigger distortion than
17-35. I use now this last one which is a more equilibrated lens.
Construction was better in the old one, less plastic. But, avoiding flames,
I think that other equivalent zoom the Nikon one is slightly better. Just
the opposite than 28-70 where Canon is far better. Rough tie for the
80-200's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I messed up on this one. And I agree with you assessment. A good
friend did have the Nikon 28-70mm for a week and returned it to the store.
He found that wide open it was soft. As crazy as that seems, he bought the
Sigma 28-70mm F2.9 EX lens and loves it. He does B&W exclusively and I
believe him since he is very very very fussy about sharpness.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
