Peter, you don't count, we all know how much you love the 20-40 :-D And the 20-35 is sharper than the old 17-35, less distortion, too. If only it were USM and my cameras didn't have this 1.6 crop factor.
Seriously, I wonder how Tamron could have made a lens as fine as the 20-40mm and paired it with their mediocre-at-best 28-105mm 2.8? Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) > Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 2:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: EOS Available light lens? > > Tom Pfeiffer wrote: > > > Gary: I've heard good things about the Sigma 20mm f/1.8, that > might be one to consider. > > The 20-35L I had was very sharp, I'd say as sharp as the > 17-40L I have now (and which is the lens your asking about, I > believe), although I didn't own them both at the same time. > Since you mention this is a new 20D, maybe the issue is the > normal lack of in-camera sharpening and not your lens? > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ------------ > Well, this is interesting. I had always thought the 20-35mm > was sharper than the 17-35mm. > Also, we recently ran a comparison at a San Jose studio using > a EOS 1D Mk II taking the same shots with a 20-35mm F2.8L and > a Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5. Wide open (both set at F2.8) and > at F8, the Tamron was far and away superior to the Canon > 20-35mm F2.8L away, that is fact. I was really surprised by this one. > What I really want to see is how much better the new Di lense are. > > Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
