>Obviously you have not used the Tamron or you would not have said what you >did. I would bet you own the Canon lenses and are speculating from what you >heard third hand. >Speaking as a person who has ACTUALLY used them the flare is not bad on the >Tamron, the colors are NOT cooler, but the various distortions inherent with >wide angles are 1% or so greater. You do get a near normal focal length at >40mm which you don't get with the others, and the lens is tack sharp (yes, >it is sharper than the Canon lenses).
lol bud don't forget what we are doing here - if one has to actually use any gear to get some idea about it, then we should all shut up and let the person who asked go buy one to try it out himself... i was considering 20-40 tamron too but some user's test samples showed it's cooler, at least than the 20-35/2.8 - that's why i went for the latter... well maybe tamron is constantly optimizing their coating formula so newer samples are neutral now? the test sample i saw was quite a while ago... as for 3rd-party makers i recommend tokina's 20-35/2.8, much cheaper than canon and much better built than sigma or tamron... of course it's harder for the 16-35 to beat the 20-35 as at least the former covers a MUCH wider range... but who knows... miracle does happen... isn't IS 80-200/2.8 sharper than non-IS? * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
