Hi Ken,
Thanks very much for the reference. I did run across this, though I
don't recognize the url. I must have gotten there with a search.
This site is actually one that I was suspicious of on the terms I
mentioned before. I am not sure if there is supposed to be some testing
methodology here or not, but I am interested in the discrepancy between
the ratings here and the objective (measured--of course that is not
necessarily "objective") ratings from photodo and the ratings I found
reported in the archive.
Specifically, the canon 20-35/2.8 is rated as having "little distortion"
while the tamron is "heavy distortion at the wide end. The only %
figure I found (in the archives from a swedish photo magazine, reported
by ollie) said that the canon 20-35/2.8 had more distortion (-3.6% vs
-3.2% for the tamron)!! (this is actually one I would have bought in
place of the canon, despite the extra cost, if the short end distortion
were very good).
The canon 17-35/2.8 is rated at "significant distortion" which is one
level better than the tamron, while the specs from photodo show -4.43%
for the canon 17-35 and -3.7 for the tamron... (yes, I realize that the
canon's distortion *could* actually be better than the tamron by the
time it zoomed to 20mm, though percentage-wise it wouldn't be, I don't think).
It is possible that the other ratings here follow the same pattern,
specifically, that in these most likely subjective ratings, the canon's
are given more slack than the 3rd party lenses. Of course the other
ratings given here might be spot on, but I wonder if the 3rd party lens
owners are just more conservative in their ratings because they have
been told over and over that OEM lenses are better?
I am not trying to argue with anyone, but I wonder if others have
noticed these kinds of trends as well? I guess it seems reasonable that
people who pay more for something might evaluate their stuff easier,
thinking maybe "this is supposed to be the best, so it must be". I know
I would say my 70-200/2.8 is about the best, and would rate it highly.
Just my thinking. I'm not ready to trade in my L series stuff for 3rd
party, and I already ordered my tamron, so it is just academic for me.
But I am interested in your opinions. Again, sorry for rambling so long.
Mike
Ken Durling wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:25:08 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Mike -
>
> You may have seen this already,but here's another source of
> comparison:
>
> http://www.cmpsolv.com/cgi-bin/output2.cgi
>
> There are only 18 inputs for the 20-40 so far, so statistically it's
> not hugely significant, but you might find it intertesting.
>
> Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
