-----Original Message----- From: Lawrance Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I too had to get a 2nd lens to cover the wide angle after my 70-200mm f/2.8L >and I really really wanted to get something that had just as good quality. >The 17-35mm f/2.8L did not possess the sort of photodo rating that I >expected it to.........................
If you check the National Geographic site, the pictures shot for a specific article/assignment will be footnoted with the equipment used by the photographer and brief data on exposure, film, etc. It seems many editors (and photographers of course), NG included, like a more comprehensive background along with the main subject to better illustrate the "story" connected with the shot. This is achieved with a wide angle lens and closer proximity to the subject. I have noted that for those National G photographers who shoot Canon, an inordinate number use the EF 17-35 L for these shots. Some comments concerning the 17-35 L's optical performance notwithstanding, it's certainly on my short-list. And I have hope that it's price may drop some with the introduction of the new 16-35 L. I guess the bottom line for me is that if the images the 17-35 L produces are published in National G with some amount of regularity, it's sure good enough for me. Gary Russell * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
