Tom Pfeiffer wrote: 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. -------------------------------------------------------- Hi Tom, It was the old 20-35 F2.8L. I was fully expectingit to render a better image but to my surprise the Tamron was far superior. This was judged by myself and 4 full-time pros. No one believed what they saw but the proof was there on the screen. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
