Hi Bob and Peter,
Thanks for the feedback and for looking for the tests. Yesterday,
someone posted the proper way to search the archive and I did that last
night. Seems like this lens was getting lots of ink (bits) here back
around 1996, and the general conclusion was that it was pretty good
(sharp, especially at he wide end) and that contrast wasn't great wide
open, but shaped up quickly one or two stops down.
I didn't find the review on photo.net (I can't find hardly anything
around there since the redesigns) but I did a search and still didn't
find it. The photodo results are impressive, and they seemed to be
echoed by some results I found posted in the archive. It seems from the
tests that it is the choice with the least barrel at the wide end also,
and it turns to pincushion at the long end, so there must be a zero
distortion point somewhere in the range that I can use for critical
shots (some wide zooms stay barrel throughout the range, making this
impossible). The trade seems to be that the pincushion get quite
significant at the long end. Hopefully that means that the zero cross
point is toward the wide end (I am hoping for 0 by 24mm).
It pretty much seems to be as good as or better than all the other
choices, including canon's own lenses, so I picked it up. In addition
to using it as a wide zoom for my eos-3, I will use it as a normal zoom
for my D30 as my walking around lens, so the extra 5mm at the long end
will definitely come in handy. looks like it equates to about a 32-64
equiv for the d30.
Oh, did I mention, I ordered it this morning? Well I did. If anyone
wants any impression once it is here, just let me know. I figure if it
doesn't perform well or it is too noisey, I can send it back since I
bought it from one of the few good retailers around (yes, I mean B&H).
thanks again Bob, Peter and Dieter.
Mike
Bob Meyer wrote:
>
> Hey Mike. I *may* stall have this test. I know I did
> a few years ago when I bought a used 20-40. My
> recollection is that they found the lens adequate, but
> not great. I had no problems with the lens, found it
> gave good results, but (IIRC--it's been a couple of
> years) contrast could have been better. I also didn't
> particularly care for the sound. Tamron's AF motors
> are or were, very loud.
>
> I'll see if I can dig it out. In the meantime, I
> think there was also a review for it at photo.net.
> You might want to take a look.
>
> Bob
>
"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
>
> I have the test report on the Tamron 20-40mm F2.7-3.5 lens.
> It outperforms the Canon 17-35 F2.8L and the 20-35 F2.8L.
> You can also check photodo.com.
>
> My Comments: Excellent lens, very very sharp, solid build, but
> AF is not USM speed. But then again I know few who require
> a fast AF 20mm lens. The nice part to the Tamron 20-40
> is that 40mm is a great people focal length.
>
> Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
