I got the first try...
I'm not sure why you say, "that's a shame." The 17-35 didn't, in my
opinion, even qualify as "OK." And I think the reason that it's better at
the edges is that it doesn't have to go as wide as the 16-35. At 20mm, the
two are very close, and the 16-35 is a little sharper in the center. I
guess I should have continued the thought, huh?
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: EOS Wide Angle Zooms & posts
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
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
