Like several others I have been trying to decide which wide
angle lens to get: (EF20mm,) EF20-35 USM or EF17-35/2.8L.
I already have the EF24/2.8 and some 28-xx zooms (and 35/2).
My *last* decision was to get the 17-35 (second hand) but for
it I should perhaps sell my 24/2.8. I like the 24/2.8. It has
good quality even at f2.8 and compared to zooms the 0.25m
closest focusing distance is a benefit (e.g. nature closeups).
Also the weight and size are bonuses. Flare?
Has anyone traded the EF24/2.8 to either of these zooms?
If so do you miss it?
Would you think I could shoot the zooms wide open (at least in
the 24-35mm range) without feeling sorry afterwards?
I have once tested the EF17-35/2.8L (handheld, three shots only)
and the results at 17 and 24mm look surprisingly good with a loupe
(ISO100 slide film). The 35mm shot was blurry so can't judge that
one, but still I believe EF17-35 would be good enough for me.
In addition to nature shots I like to shoot mostly (including
family pictures) without a flash so performance wide open is
somewhat important in low light.
For some reason I'm not really considering the non-Canons nor the
older EF20-35 L lens.
Or maybe I could keep the 24/2.8 and *still* get the 17-35.... but
why would I keep the 24/2.8 then...? Sigh.
Vesa
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
