 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
|
|
|
|
Theresa Z.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2828
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice wide view on film cameras or low focal length multiplier digitals. Ok sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Not so great contrast. With focal multipliers on some digitals becomes kind of an intermediate wide.
|
|
|
My experience here isn't the best. I just don't think this lens has the punch I expect. I guess I'm a contrast junky and don't think this lens has much in that area. Could be that I don't have a great one too.
|
|
 Apr 22, 2003
|
|
D.McCauley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 474
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent lense for the price. I find it sharper than my L-Zoom lenses.
Very sharp lense
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is a great wide angle lense especially if you are on a budget. It shoots very clear and sharp colorful pictures. I would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a good wide angle lense. I found most pictures taken with this lense much sharper than those taken with the 16-35mm L-Zoom Lense.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
lou
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2277
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, color and contrast good.
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion is minimal.
|
|
|
Looking at the first two reviews, I wonder if i have the same lens. I find it focus's fast and over all distortion is minimal, maybe on a full frame or regular film camera it might me more noticeable.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
Jack Flesher
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3489
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
It's a 20...
|
|
Cons:
|
Barrel distortion, not-so-great edge resolution.
|
|
|
Had it, tested it, used a little, wasn't impressed, sold it. At the time my 17-35 was a better 20... But then I shoot with FF and 1.3 crop factor cameras.
revision 06/10/03: I just obtained a second copy of this lens, and it is significantly better than my first one was. This one has very good center performance, and edge performance about equal to my Tokina 17. This 20 still shows some CA at the corners, and significant vignetting at f2.8, notable vignetting at f4, and slight vignetting at f5.6, but the center performance is significantly better than my previous lens. I would rate this one a 3.5 overall if I could.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
John MacLean
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 390
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
not many
|
|
Cons:
|
soft and CA
|
|
|
I sold this years ago and got the new (at the time) 17-35, which I felt was a better lens overall. I was getting soft corners and CA on 35mm slide film. Probably D30, D60, and 10D users will never see the faults I did, due to their 1.6x crop. Luckily you'll only get the sweet spot of any and all lenses!
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
53
|
188074
|
May 30, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
85% of reviewers
|
$358.76
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.38
|
8.06
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
