> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Gillooly > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:25 PM > To: Canon EOS Mailing List > Subject: EOS 16-35 vs. 17-35 > > > As a USM upgrade to my venerable EF 20-35mm f/2.8L, I'm considering one > of the newer lenses. > > Has anyone used them both and compared sharpness and linear distortion > between the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM and the older EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM? > Yes, I realize I get an extra mm at the wide-angle position with the > former. > > Mr. Bill
I asked a similar question here about a year ago, and got several good answers. I had a 17-40L with a 16-35L on the way. I ended up borrowing a friend's 17-35L and trying all three. For me, the 17-40L was the best, but I didn't HAVE to have the extra stop in a wide-angle. The 17-35L was definitely not of the same image quality as the other two. The 16-35L was very good, but bigger, heavier, and 35 to 40mm is a pretty big range on a 1.6 crop digital body. I've heard, but have no experience to back it up, that the 20-35L was better than it's replacement, but without USM. If you put stock in subjective ratings, over at Fred Miranda's reviews the 20-35 got 8.6 on a scale of 1-10, the 17-35 an 8.2, and the two newer ones got 8.8. If you don't really need the faster focus or the extra 3-4mm, I'd stick with what you have. But that's me :) tomp * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
