Hi Chip,
I do hear the 20/2.8 is very sharp/contrast-e. I do not hear much
about the
35/2. I guess pros would be using a 28-70L, consumers using a 28-90, So
the market for the 35/2 is limited to odd balls like myself :)
-Dan
Chip Louie wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I picked this lens up a year ago and have been very happy
> > with the 4*6
> > prints I make with it in the dark room. Last night in the wee hours of
> > the morning I was printing 11*14 from negs made with this lens. I was
> > some what disappointed with the sharpness of the prints. Center
> > sharpness was very, very good but getting out to the edges it was soft.
> > The image was of a memorial "stone?" and there were trees at the edge of
> > the photo and the branches were very fuzzy. There was no wind and I
> > used a tripod and shot at f8.
> >
> > To you that own/used this lens is this the norm? My 50/1.8 & 100/2
> > perform a lot better than that. I've been thinking of buying a 35/2 and
> > a 20/2.8. Do those lenses perform better or the same?
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> I don't know about the EF 35 f/2 but the EF 20 2.8 is a sharp lens with
> pretty low linear distortion. The EF 50 1.4USM and EF 85 1.8USM are also
> very sharp with excellent snap to their images on film.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chip Louie
>
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
