> >Pierre,
> >Have you considered the 17-35/2.8L? Also, I didn't see anyone suggesting
> >this lens. Is it too wide for you or the benefits does not justify the
> >price? I understand that Photodo rates this lens lower than the
> >20-35/3.5-4.5. Does this particular L lens is inferior than the consumer
> >grade lens?
> From: Pierre Bellavance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> When I saw the price of the 17-35/2.8L, I immediately stopped considering
it.
I have heard quite a few people suggest that the EF 17-35 L has been
disappointing optically--Michael Reichmann at www.luminous-landscape.com/
the most recent, when he comments on his lens inventory. I haven't found
any direct visual comparisons between it and the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM or even
it's predecessor the 20-35 f/2.8 L, but understand the owner's of the latter
two are satisfied without having the 17-35 L. The price of the lens vs the
(low) frequency of my use of wide-zooms would discourage me from buying one.
All of this notwithstanding, the 17-35 L certainly seems to be sought after
and brings a handsome price used I see.
Gary Russell
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
