----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Gillooly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: EOS 16-35 vs. 17-35
I've got the 20-35mm L, maybe I need to find a friend with the 16-35mm L
and spend a day shooting and comparing.
The 17-40mm L sounds good too, but I'm trying to go with the "3-zooms" for
quick day trips and the extra aperture comes in handy.
Mr. Bill
Actually, I have the 20-35 and the 16-35, and, like I said, I rented the
17-35, the 20-35's immediate replacement. My experience backs up what Tom
has heard, the 20-35 is better than the 17-35, and is actually better on the
edges than the 16-35, but the difference at 20mm and f2.8 isn't huge. Of
course, the 20-35 is much worse at 16mm... <g>
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
