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?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Harrie
>
I own a 24/1.4L, a 35/1.4L and a 20-35/2.8L. I take photos of trains inside dim
stations, depots, etc. and the speed is crucial. I consider my zoom to be my
"20" and "28mm" lenses. I must admit, except for the loss of 2 stops, the zoom
is fantastic, even at 20mm. Very sharp with little distortion.
John Lovda
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
