Javier Perez wrote:
Not meaning to throw in another variable but
I think another thing you might want to look at is
whether you may be getting into a 5d or 1ds any time
soon. If so, these ultra wides will become little more
than curio objects once you do.
Not sure of course but I would guess that the 24-70 is
a far better lens than any of the ultra wides, L or
not.
Sorry if this is not right to the point! I have
avoided investing in these extreme zooms except for
the 17-40. I have heard it's the best of the ultra
wides if you don't mind loosing one stop! Someone did
a full comparison with the 16-35. It was on dpreview I
think.
Javier
So what you're saying is that there is no place for an ultrawide in the
full frame arena........
I beg to differ with you. Both the 16-35 and the 17-40 are viable
lenses even with full frame. When I got my 20D I got the 17-40 with
it. I use it both on the 20D and my -3 when I feed the need to regress
and shoot film......
I don't think I am alone in my thinking that super wides are good and
useful in the 1.6 digital and the full frame world.
Bob
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
