>
> No, actually he is not. The Tamron *is* an extremely sharp lens.
> FWIW, photodo rates it a 3.7, higher than any of the Canon zooms
> (17-35L = 3.2; 20-35L = 3.5) in the same range. Okay those are just
> numbers, but if you look at slides from the lens, they are razor
> sharp.
>
> Not to be unpolite, but have you seen evidence to the contrary?
>
>
> Ken Durling
>
Not really.Actually,I've never seen a Tamron,neither I remeber seen photos
taken with it... Though at first my comment may seem a little stupid under
this conditions,you probably understand the drama of someone who spent a
thousand bucks in a lens trying desperatly to belive that there is no such
thing like a lens which cost 1/5 and deliver better results!
Apart from the joke (is it?) actually I've always been looking for photos
taken with Canons and third part lenses in magazines,and always have the
subjective sensation that Canons have more contrast and better color
rendition,as well as sharpness.This is a general observation,may not be
valid for a specific lens. The same way Canon look inferior to me when I
compare it to photos taken by Leica and Zeiss lenses...
As of my 17-35,I'm pretty satisfied with sharpness,though the corners
distortion at 17 really hurts...
[ ],Andr�
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
