That is ashame. Because I tested the 20-35mm and found it just OK and not great. We tested it on an EOS 1D Mk II against several lenses and found that the Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5 was far superior in terms of resolution and contrast. But it has a bit more distortion. I think the wide angle zoom to get for Canon is either the 16-35mm F2.8L, but you noted it is soft on the corners. Interesting point. Make me wonder what I would buy if I needed this focal range in a zoom lens. I think I would check out the Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 as I have heard it is very good.
Peter K ----- Original Message ---- From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:07:50 AM Subject: Re: EOS 16-35 vs. 17-35 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Gillooly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:04 PM Subject: Re: EOS 16-35 vs. 17-35 > I've got the 20-35mm L, maybe I need to find a friend with the 16-35mm L > and spend a day shooting and comparing. > > The 17-40mm L sounds good too, but I'm trying to go with the "3-zooms" for > quick day trips and the extra aperture comes in handy. > > Mr. Bill > Actually, I have the 20-35 and the 16-35, and, like I said, I rented the 17-35, the 20-35's immediate replacement. My experience backs up what Tom has heard, the 20-35 is better than the 17-35, and is actually better on the edges than the 16-35, but the difference at 20mm and f2.8 isn't huge. Of course, the 20-35 is much worse at 16mm... <g> Skip Middleton ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
