Which Canon 20-35 were you testing? The USM one or the old L? I'd be more interested in the merits of the 28-300mm if the price hadn't gone up 75% in the transistion from 35-350mm. But for $2200, I'd rather have the 24 and 35L's and keep struggling along with the 28-70L and 100-400L.
Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: EOS 28-300mm IS L lens > > > Chip, > > You may very well be right here. One of the reasons I wanted > to try this is that recently I had the chance to test a Canon > 20-35mm which everyone said was great for digital even though > it was really designed for film against my own Tamron 20-40. > Few like the Tamron on this list. > We used a friends EOS 1D Mk 2 and placed used each lens > shooting wide open and stopped down. We compared the shoots > at corner and center in Photoshop CS. The Tamron blew the > Canon away. So I was interested to see what the real truths > where. The 28-300 could be a dog, or could be good. > We shall see. > > Peter K > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
