I owned a Canon 14mm for about a year. During the same period I owned a Canon 20-35mm L. Both great lenses. I did a lot of train photography inside stations, etc. and my back was killing me because of the weight in my backpack. I sold both of them and bought a Canon 16-35mm L. I really felt bad selling the 14mm because it was kind of special and "exotic". However, there is not that much of a difference between 14mm and 16mm (for me at least) and they both were 2.8. I have absolutely no complaints about the image quality of the 16-35. I will be honest and admit that I have never and probably will never even consider a non-Canon lens so consider these comments somewhat biased. John Lovda Canton, OH
--- Wilber Jeffcoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seasons Greetings to One and All! I have a question > about 14mm lens. This is > a focal length that I would not use too often ( but > when you need it you > need it), as a result I'm not sure I want to put > $2000 in a Canon lens. I > see that Tamron (Bronica) sells their version in > Canon mount for $1099 and > Sigma is in at $899. Both are 2.8 and I need some > feed back as to image > quality, sharpness (corners and center-wide open and > stopped down), > contrast, distortion (with a leveled camera set-up), > and built quality-you > know all the things one would want to know when they > are spending this much > money. Also has anyone any experience with the > 70-200 2.8 IS and the 300 2.8 > IS? > Thanks in advance. > Cheers Wilber __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
