--- Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> OTOH, the Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 rates that same one
> tenth of a point less
> than Canon's 17-35 f2.8L on photodo. But it retails
> for just over a
> third of the Canon price. Which is the better
> value? How often do you
> need f2.8 at 35mm?
If you've already got a constant-aperture 28-70 2.8,
that question doesn't even need to be asked. :-)
MadMat
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
