--- Hugo Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here we go again... The 70-200/2.8 IS? Why does it
> sound too good to be
> true? What's the point of doing a 16-35/2.8? Even
> considering that you
> must multiply the focal lenght of the lens by 1.6
> with the D30, it would
> still be a marginal improvement in focal range:
Well, I don't think that this new 16-35 was introduced
because of the D30/D1v. As a matter of fact, I would
think that the 16 vs 17 is more important as a
marketing thing then anything else. The main reason
for the 16-35 is probably a simple improvement
regarding optics, weather-sealing, etc. As far as I
know the 17-35/2.8 while good was not a master piece
of optics.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
