Harrie,
I've got the 17-35 and don't plan to ever part with it. I find that the
edges get a bit stretched when at 17mm. But at 20mm+ the image is much
better. Nonetheless, I still find myself using 17mm from time to time.
Were I to buy a 20mm or 24mm, it would be to take pictures without flare. I
found that I need to be careful not to let any bright light sources near the
frame with the 17-35 or else I get fogging.
In short, I would guess the optics of the prime to be better--but the
flexibility of the zoom is very useful.
Dave B.
Harrie Frericks wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying the 17-35 2.8 L. I'm still not sure
> because the 24
> 1.4 seems to be a very good alternative. The trade-off would be zoom
> versatility for the 17-35 versus two extra stops and better
> optical quality
> for the 24. Any thoughts? Has anyone ever compared the optical quality of
> these two lenses? Is the 24 really better?
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
