Tom Pfeiffer wrote: > It simple Wilbur, sometimes the 3rd party glass is better! Example, the > 20-40mm Tamron runs circles around bothte 20-35mm F2.8 and 17-35mm Canon > lenses. Yes, the later has USM but for me its a so what. I don't need AF > speed for wide angle shots. > Peter K Peter, you once took me to task in some comments I made about the Tamron lens, but reading your comments here make me want to ask what your (and others') thoughts on on the best way to go below 20mm in the EOS world. My current superwide is the Canon 20-35 USM (not the L), and I've often thought either the Canon or Sigma 17-35 would be the replacement for it someday because I think I would really enjoy the extra coverage. But not enough to buy a prime, unless it was the Tokina 17mm, which I don't know very well. I'd rather have the convenience of a zoom AND not add a lens to my kit but just replace one. Not that I'm not happy with what I've got, but I know I'd use that other 3mm from time to time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Tom, Well, that depends on your pockets. If you don't mind making as added investment in 82mm filters the Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a great bargain. You do have to live with the fact that there is a 1 stop variance in the lens of F2.8-4 from 17 to 35mm, but if you rarely use it wide open the lens is a bargain considering the excellent resolution you get in the mid apertures. Now if need an F2.8 aperture throuhhout the range the only choice is the Canon 17-35mm F2.8 L. Only downside to that lens is the price is more than 2x the Sigma. Of course you do get USM and for all the extra moeny you pay for it you will get a very solid lens no doubt, plus a neat looking Canon logo on the barrel. ;-) Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
