I really need to be more clear in my writing. I meant, by " it's" is the
20-35 is better at the edges, not the 17-35, than the 16-35. The 17-35 was,
in my opinion, a thoroughly mediocre lens, not as good anywhere along its
reach as the 20-35 and 16-35. Which is why, at the time, I bought the Sigma
17-35 f2.8-4, not much worse than the Canon 17-35, but a whole bunch
cheaper. I don't think the Tamron version had been introduced at that
point, and the width of the Sigma and Canon were the deciding factor when
compared to the Tamron 20-40.
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: EOS Wide Angle Zooms & posts
Because the 20-35mm was always regarded as better than the 17-35mm F2.8L.
Makes me feel glad I have the 30D and not the 5D. I like the 10-22mm, the
equivalent of the 16-35mm on my camera.
Peter K
----- Original Message ----
From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:51:48 AM
Subject: Re: EOS Wide Angle Zooms & posts
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
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
