Hi All, Re the recent discussion about 15-30's 17-40's etc I'd like to make the following personal observations....
I have one of the 17-40 f4L lenses (for travel and hiking) and also a 16-35 f2.8L (for almost everything else...). I use them on a 10D (as, similarly to what others have described, I've barely touched a film body since going to a D60, now replaced by a 10D). So I can't speak about edge sharpness for 35mm use, but the 17-40 certainly seems to match the 16-35 in image (and build) quality - allowing for the 1.6 crop factor of the 10D. I can see no cause for complaint with it - for 35mm (or 1Ds) use YMMV. Previous to the 17-40 I had a 20-35 usm (the non-L version) for travel use and it was also very good. What made me switch was the extra 3mm & 5mm at either end compared to the 20-35, which *I* found significant on the 10D. Ok, it's physically larger (quite similar to the 16-35 in fact), has the same excellent build characteristics as the 2.8 lens but is quite a bit lighter than the 16-35, although heavier than the 20-35. All 3 use the same 77mm filter size. I was barely using the 20-35 as I preferred the 16-35's wide end, but I didn't like the extra weight of carrying it (along with other lenses) when travelling etc, so the 17-40 seemed like a good thing. I also have two 70-200s as well (for exactly the same reasons) - an f4L and an f2.8L IS. AND I've seen the same statements made about the 70-200 f4L too (i.e. nowhere near the quality of the 2.8 versions). I beg to differ in both cases.... A few years ago I also had a Sigma EX 17-35 f2.8-4 - very light also and pretty darned good optically too, but it annoyed the hell out of me that the whole focusing ring turned in AF mode, when none of my Canon lenses did that. It almost made me drop the camera & lens more than once (as I cradle the lens in my left hand) and eventually that lead me to sell it. Shame, as it was otherwise a good lens, priced well and had fair build quality too. I tried a Sigma 20 f1.8 and found it too soft, even for digital framing. Haven't tried the 15-30, so no opinions there, but I'd be interested to know if it has the same rotating focusing ring.... I bought a used Tokina 17mm f3.5 AT-X (the earlier version, not the Pro version). I've always liked the 17mm Tokinas, having owned a couple from FD days in the early 80s (as well as a Nikon mount one) and this one was no exception. Optically good (even at max aperture it was pretty good) with build quality matching any L series lens. I kept it until the purchase of the 16-35 and have no regrets about switching.... Cheers Gary The following message has been received from the Internet. Please use with caution the message and any attachments * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
