Jeff LeFever wrote (edited): My L glass lenses delivered better quality and performance when I began purchasing 1d bodies....
My experience has been that I got better performance from the marriage of the 1 and the L. ....Specs and chart tests don't always reveal the whole story of a lens. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- Jeff, While it was very nice of you to write this epsitle justifying your spending more $$ on Canon L glass, it is a case by case basis. Let me give you an example, we have a 20-35mm F2.8L on a 1D Mark II, also a Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5. Shot the same images, had 5 professional photographers look at the results, and the Tamron won hands down. While your macro lens may indeed be exactly as you indicate, and I would not doub this as the longer focal length Canon lenses are really first rate, I have found most of their wide angles are not always sharp. Additionally, the 90mm Tamron Macro and the 105mm Sigma Macro are indeed sharper and have better resolution of detail than the 100mm Canon Macro (non-L of course). In your case the Canon L macro at twice the price of the Tamron was worth the additional to get the detail you sought. Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
