I think you're both right. Before digital, I would have said I was happy with the 20-35 USM on film bodies, and I was already using pretty much digital (1.6) by the time I bought the 17-40. But the 17-40 is pretty cool on full frame film, so I'd still want something wider than 20mm even if I move to a 5D.
Tom P. > 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 ***********************************************************
