That is weird. I reply but my messages never make it. I will try again. It is ashame what you note about the Canon 20-35mm F2.8L lens because I've tested this lens and found it to be just OK, 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 (real surprise here) was far superior in terms of resolution and contrast. But it did have a bit more distortion. I always thought 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 zoom for a full frame EOS DSLR. Maybe I would check out the Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 as I have heard it is very good, also reasonably priced.
Peter K ----- Original Message ---- Skip wrote: 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... Skip Middleton ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
