> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: EOS 28-300mm IS L lens > > 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
Hmmm, and that was supposed to be the best of the Canon 16/17/20-35/40 zooms. I also didn't realize the 20-40 was discontinued, at least it's not in the latest B&H print ad. Tom P. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
