I had this Tamron for a while, only sold it because my needs ran
longer, but it was indeed a *very* sharp lens with good color. The
only thing I didn't like about it was its noisy AF motor and slight
tendency to hunt. My Tamron 90/2.8 macro is the same, but is also
optically excellent. I remember when I bought the Tamron 20-40 I was
told a medical equipment testing outfit had just bought a large
number of them. It made sense to me once I started shooting with it
- it's that sharp.
So when you say the 17-40L isn't "tack sharp" - can you
elaborate? is that just wide open? Can you overcome it by stopping
down? I'm considering one for my 30D, and don't presently have the
budget for a 16-35.
Ken
At 10:40 AM 4/18/2006, you wrote:
The Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5 is a bargain these days. We compared it
against the 20-35mm F2.8L and the Tamron was better by a substantial
margin. This was done using a EOS 1D Mk II and several photographers,
all of whom with the exception of one, were Canon shooters, viewed the
results.
I do hear the 16-35mm is a much better optic, but it ain't cheap.
Ken Durling
Composition and Music Services
Berkeley, CA
[510] 843-4419
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
