At 09:15 25/01/02 GMT, you wrote: > >Hi, > >I wanted to buy the Canon 20-35 USM. But since prices in the USA are >much lower than in Europe I'm thinking about purchasing a Canon (16)17- >35 f/2.8L AF at B&H. > >I will be shooting mainly landscapes with this lens. Is it worth >upgrading from 20-35 to 17-35; is the 17-35 above 20 mm optical much >better than the 20-35 usm? > >Is it worth upgrading from Canon 17-35 to 16-35 pure for optics (my >body is not dust resistance)
ep! before buy visit this ste: Camera reviews at PhotographyREVIEW.com very bad opinions for 17-35... ;-) Canon not make new 16-35 only for digital bodies... I have this dilemma a few days ago... at last after read, read and read I get a Bronica ETRSi system :-) and for very good locations a Fuji 6x9 or LF 10x13 is the best option, but, my conclusion, is, zooms for landscapes are a little dumb! if you have a prime, use it! my "old" Canon AE-1 P with 100mm f/2,8 and Tamron 28 f/2,5 also are in my backpack for "birds" :-) I wand to buy a 70-200 f/2,8 IS but I presume any current body are capable of get 100% of this glass after replacement for 1V adeu * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
