I'm actually not surprised by the Tamron 20-40. I owned it for a
while and it is a brilliant lens. When I bought it the salesman told
me a medical instrument testing outfit has just bought dozens of
them. I'm very tempted to buy the EF-S 10-22, as the images I've
seen, on the web at any rate, have been remarkable. I just wish it
wasn't limited to APS-C.
And Peter, yes, this list continues to be a frustration in terms of
getting through. I wish someone would solve it. I think I'm
following all the guidelines.
Ken
At 08:46 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
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...
****
*******
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
