>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?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apples and Oranges are hard to compare. If you need the versatility buy the
zoom. If you do a lot of scenic or photojournalism work and use 24mm often
then the 24mm F1.4 may be better to get those available light shots.
If you don't need the speed, Consider the Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX lens and
with the savings buy the Canon 24mm F2.8.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
