-----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 actually own the 16-35 and 17-40 and I have had the 20-35 f2.8 and the
17-35 f2.8. Overall the best is the 17-40. None of them, however, is an
outstanding lens but the 17-40 is almost acceptable. With full frame EOS
others -16-35, 17-35 and 20-35- have very soft corners and borders at
2.8 and even the Canon 14mm at f2.8 is soft. Nowadays the only wide zoom
I'm regularly using is the 17-40 but I hope Canon had offered a better
lens in the line of Carl Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 for Contax N. I think that
there exist enough demand for that even at very high cost. I believe the
best extreme wide images from Canon DSLR are those of EOS30D and 10-22
Canon EFS zoom..
Felix.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
