Don't forget the weight either, the 17-35 is very solidly built - and hence heavy lense - I have one and like it a lot, it can make some pretty fantastic interior shots possible, but the distortion can be disconcerting. If you think you need to go as wide as 17, then get the zoom lense, I know for myself it makes a big difference for some pictures - if not then get the faster lighter sharper prime... * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
- EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Harrie Frericks
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Dave Buyens
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? John M. Lovda
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? John Pattenden
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Dan Honemann
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Thomas Bantel
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Bob Meyer
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
- RE: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Kim
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.... Robert Meier
- Re: EOS 17-35 2.8 L or 24 1.4 L? Thomas Bantel
