Width? Do you mean range? Personally I found 20-40 ideal. Wide to near normal. If there were a good 20-40mm (as good as the Tamron was) I would buy it.
Peter K ----- Original Message ---- From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:28:49 PM Subject: Re: EOS Wide Angle Zooms & posts 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
