One big difference between 20-35 zoom and the 20/2.8 is that the barrel
distortion on the zoom is over 4% at the wide end. It is also not very
good on the 20/2.8 but it is around 2%, which, I guess, is twice as good
(?). Still, 2% seems like a lot to me. I have been toying with the
idea of a 20/28 or possibly a 24 TSE. But, really, the performance on
all three of these lenses is fairly dismal (and is not much better on
the 17-35L or the older 20-35L). Certainly not up to the standards set
by Canon's longer lenses. This is probably due to the retrofocus design
required by the SLR design (mirror clearance). The only reasonable idea
I have come up with so far is to get the 21/2.8 for my Contax G camera.
It has almost no barrel distortion and the sharpness is very high. I am
sure the same goes for the lenses for Konica's Hexar, Voigtlander's
Bessas, Leica, etc.
I realize this is a sort of heresy, but anyone have any comments about
this. The only drawback I can think of is the problems of using a
polarizer on a rangefinder, but this is, for me, offset by the ability
to use IR filters and still see through the VF.
All the specs above are from memory of Photodo when i was researching
this last month. Sorry for any incorrect numbers.
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>
>
> Surprisingly, the MTF data from Photodo suggests that the
> 20-35/3.5-4.5 is very similar in optical performance to the
> 20/2.8
>
> Cheers
> Julian Loke
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
