Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
David Jurney wrote (edited):
On another note...
Question: has anyone on this list done a comparison of the 24-105mm
f/4L with the 17-40mm f/4L? I am curious as to how they perform at
their common focal lengths. I would assume the 17-40mm f/4L would
perform better, but I am curious about any real world comparisons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David
The 24-105mm is tack sharp, the 17-40L is not.
Peter K
Are you basing this "fact" on your friend's disappointment or on a real
comparison?
I saw in a later post that you admit that you may have a lens that isn't
up to snuff. If your friend's lens is still in warranty maybe it should
be sent back to Canon to get it fixed. Then it might be like the rest.
This sort of reminds me of my experiences with Ford Thunderbirds. I
had a '86, a '88, a two '94s, and a '95. If I based my opinion on the
'88 I would say that Thunderbirds were junk. But the rest were great
cars. One of the '94s and the '95 are still on the road with 150K +
miles each. The '86 is still on the road but not a daily driver and
it is near 200K miles. The other '94 was a target for other cars, two
accidents in less than six months so I got rid of it.
Bob
--
/////
( O O )
--------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curiosity killed the cat although I was a suspect for a while........
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
