File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
can i get some opinions on the canon ef 20mm f/2.8
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:24 20:47:46Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width230Image Height230
>> Anonymous
>>204475
This may be of interest to you.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2004/june/sr_tokina.shtml

Don't think they still make it, but nothing wrong with buying used.
>> Anonymous
>>204482
A full review of the lens:

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html
>> Anonymous
>>204480
True, but the 17-40L isn't even twice as much as the 20mm and it's much sharper and is a zoom to boot. Of course it's limited to f/4 but that's usually not as big a deal with wide angles.
>> Anonymous
>>204485

How the fuck can you disagree with that when it's quantifiably verifiable fact? The quality of the glass not to mention the construction of the lenses of now absolutely eats anything that came out of the 80s by a long way, and you'd be a fool for not accepting it. That's like saying Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose.

Psssh, fucking Johnny-come-latelys 'round these parts.
>> Anonymous
>>204483
im digging this. im going to see if i can find one, and at least give it a whirl! thanks for the info
>> okto
>>204492
My MTF is better than your MTF.
>> Anonymous
>>204463
It has shitty bokeh, hardly worth it.
>> Anonymous
>>204492
Your post is nonsensical but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
>> Anonymous
>>205382
>>205445

copypasta from that thread about new lenses > 80s lenses