-----Original Message-----
From: Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, December 21, 2000 7:55 PM
Subject: RE: EOS Re: PJ lenses
>Robb wrote:
>
>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?
>
>
>Wow! What a combo. I think you could save $800 and use the Sigma 17-35
>F2.8-4 unless of courese you absolutely need F2.89 all the time in which
>case the Canon is the only way to go.
You pay for much more than just a constant f2.8: you pay for the
quality(optical and mechanical), compatibility, good service, reliability
and good resale if necessary. The Sigma wins in price only IMHO.
>As to the 35-350mm lens, you may be better off with the 100-400 which has
IS
>and buy a cheap but far sharper 50mm F1.8.
It depends on what you're photographing. The 100-400 starts too long to be a
good PJ lens IMO. For versatility, there is very little beating the 35-350
(wellll, maybe a 35-350IS!) For PJ there is no time to swap lenses too much.
You preferably need the 35-350 on a 1n in your hands with the 17-35 on
another body slung across your shoulder.
My 2c
regards
Thys
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Photography Website: http://home.mweb.co.za/te/teknovis/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
