Although not a wide angle on most digital sensors, I think the 35mm f/1.4L is an outstanding lens. And except for the 14mm and 28mm f/1.8, the rest of the wide primes are all very good.
As for zooms, I'd agree with your assesment. Of the 17-35L, 16-35L and 17-40L, I kept the 17-40L because it was as sharp as the others two, cost less, and gave me an extra 5mm on the long end. Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Henning Wulff > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [inbox] Re: EOS 28-300mm IS L lens > > At 10:17 AM -0700 6/21/05, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote: > >Tom Pfeiffer wrote: > > > >Hmmm, and that was supposed to be the best of the Canon > 16/17/20-35/40 > >zooms. > > > >I also didn't realize the 20-40 was discontinued, at least > it's not in > >the latest B&H print ad. > > > >--------------------------------------- > >Hi Tom, > > > >Yes, I was very surprised by this too. The interesting part to these > >tests, as crazy as it may seem to some, is that they align very well > >with the Pop Photo lens tests that everyone puts little faith in. > >Noting this I have a new opinion of Pop Photo tests. Their > tests show > >the Tamron 20-40mm bettered the Canon and aparently it does > hold water. > > > >Peter K > >* > > The unfortunate thing is that it once again shows how Canon's > wideangle program falls down. As good as Canon's tele's are, > the wideangles are really a weak point. This applies to the > fixed focal lengths as well. > > The common reports of people using and getting better results > from Contax, Leica and even Nikon lenses on Canon DSLR's in > preference to Canon's own in spite of the inconvenience are > fully credible, and mirror my own experience. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
