-----Original Message-----
From: Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Thanks everyone for the info on lenses.
>
>I am considering the 17-35mm and the 35-350mm.
>How dust and water proof are these lenses?
>How much better is the Canon 17-35mm over the third party equivelents?
>
Robb
I have the 35-350 and 20-35/2.8L which I have owned for six years now. My
lenses have survived serious dust storms in the Kalahari desert to rain
storms on the east coast. The 20-35 recently fell out of my jacket pocket
into a lake while doing a shoot for a golf coarse brochure. I fished it out,
dried it in the sun for a while and is still shooting with it. The 35-350,
on the other hand, is showing some dust inside the lens (which, I think is
to be expected with it being a pull-zoom: it has to 'inhale' air from
outside when extending it and thereby pulling in dust) Canon, South Africa
cleaned it for me for free.
You'd probably find that the Canon 17-35 will optically be close to, say,
the Sigma 17-35(f2.8-f4?) or others, but the difference is in mechanical
construction. My personal experience with Sigma has been very bad and I just
won't trust them for anything important. I won't mention the Canon's superb
resale value because I know a 17-35/f2.8L lens is a lens you own for life:-)
Regards
Thys
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thys van der Merwe.
Photography Website: http://home.mweb.co.za/te/teknovis/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
