I own neither, and while a few months ago I was convinced that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be my next lens, lately I'm convinced that one of those two will be.
I'm totally stumped as to which though (which is ok since I can't afford either one currently). I need f/2.8 on my 24-70, and it was the reason I bought it, but I don't need it on a super-wide zoom. So that brings it down to a question of how much zoom and where the zoom falls. I can't decide if I want the 40mm width of the f/4 or the 16mm narrowness of the f/2.8. My inner lensoholic says I should punt and get both, but I'd have to sell a valuable internal organ to be able to do that (if I only get one I just have to sell a expendable internal organ, or maybe some bone marrow). Since you say you don' t need the extra stop, then perhaps you should look at it like I currently am: in terms of width and narrowness. Is your current lens just too narrow even at the widest zoom? Is it just barely long enough at the longest zoom? On 4/2/06, Tom Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A friend has offered me a really good deal on a 16-35 (I presently have the > 17-40) and I was hioping a couple of list members might have owned/used both > and could comment on which they consider the best optically. I don't really > have a need for the extra stop, but at the price, it's nearly a free > upgrade. If it's an upgrade. -- Schlake This is my gmail account, I'm more likely to read email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
