Nope, meant width, that's why I bought the Sigma 17-35.
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Wide Angle Zooms & posts
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
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
