EF 20-35mm 3.4-4.5 optical quality, vs Tamron 20-40

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I am looking for an ultra-wide zoom. Does anyone have any input or experience with the 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 EFusm? I would rather not spend the $1200 dollars for the 17-35 2.8L. What about the 20-35 vs 3rd parties such as the Tamron 20-40 or Tokina 20-35's?

-- Michael Bowman (msbowman@midusa.net), October 21, 1999

Answers

According to MTF tests results done by Photodo and practical photography, the EF20-35/3.5-4.5 is one of the better performers than the 17-35/2.8L. If you are tight on budget, it is worth considering the 20-35 as it has a reputation for sharpness and contrast. Tests done by independent parties and professional photographers alike, confirmed that the 17-35L has the weakest range at the wide end, that is, barrel distortion and lack of sharpness and contrast at its widest aperture. so unless you really need that extra 3mm wide, do without it.

the EF20-35mm will be my next lens.

-- Anthony Wong (anthwo@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.


I compared the exact same lenses and then based on optical quality reports I've read, bought the Tamron 20-40mm 3.5-4.5 lens. I am very happy with it and although isn't as good as Canon lenses, I am not concerned since I often manual focus when using that lense....scenery doesn't move very fast.

-- BRuce Gowdy (bruce@martinron.com), September 02, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ