F�lix L�pez de Maturana wrote: I have or have had all of three. All of them have a strong vignetting, distortion and good sharpness. Perhaps the 20-35 had a little less distortion but IMHO the best is the 16-35. However none of them reach the level of quality of a good prime as to manufacture a excellent wide zoom is almost impossible, but are much more comfortable, and like me, if you are using a FF EOS the less changing the lenses the better.for the cleaning the sensor. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felix,
I know I posted this some time back but some friends and I did a test with different wide angles using a Canon Eos 1D Mark II. We tested the Caon 20-35 F2.8L (very good lens) against a Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5. The Tamron blew the Canon away wide open, and while the Canon got better at F8, the Tamron was still better. I know this is blasphemy to many who only want Canon lenses, but this is the truth and something we were very very surprised to find. If someone is looking for the 20-35 Canon, save some money and get the 20-40 Tamron. You will not be sorry. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
