Chip Louie wrote (edited):
> Tom P. (wrote edited): > There are non-Canon lenses that are very nearly the equal of many Canon L > lenses. Some that come to mind are the Sigma 70-200 2.8, the > Tokina 300 2.8 > and the Tamron 20-40 2.8. But now that you mention it some of the lenses you mention are okay, some even pretty good. But on the Canon EF mount none are as good overall as the Canon lenses in their focal length. All of them fall flat on one or more points; optical performance (and all that this encompasses), AF speed, build quality, long term reliability and compatibility. None of the third party lenses has the overall excellence of the Canon "L" lenses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- Chip, I think you are a Canon rep or Canon is paying you to continually talk up how wonderful Canon lenses are. Your posts are like reading a Canon ad. Just keep saying, "Everything with the Canon logo is Wonderful!" soon you will believe it yourself. I agree with Tom P. I have the Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5 SP lens and can tell you flat out it is a better lens optically than either the 20-35mm L and the 17-35mm L. Canot speak to the 16-35 or 17-40. Tamron has never had a problem with compatibilty or reliability. The only downside for this 20-40 is that AF is slower. But for wide angles speed is not a big issue. Peter K (It does not have to be an L to be good!) * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
