At 7:49 PM -0500 2/5/07, Bill Gillooly wrote:
That's pretty convincing.
Mr. Bill
Cotty wrote:
I presume you've seen this?
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml>
I've already made my mind up and will be picking up a 24mm 1.4 L in the
spring.
*
****
The 24/1.4 is fine for what it is: an
exceptionally fast wide lens, but it is hardly
outstanding. You need to stop it down quite a bit
to get sharp results in the corners. This lens is
nothing like the 35/1.4.
I have both of them, plus 3 others that have 24mm
in their range. The 24TSE isn't that great
either, the 16-35 I sold because it is quite poor
until f/8 throughout, and the 24-105 is quite
good at 24 except for fairly sever vignetting.
The 24/2.8 is good, but not as good as Nikon's.
Canon just doesn't have much that is good in the
wider range. The 12-24 Sigma I have is slightly
better than the 16-35 I had, at similar focal
lengths and stops. Admittedly, the Sigma is not
of the mechanical quality of the 16-35 and is
quite slow, but it is better (if you get a decent
sample).
I agree with Félix; the 10-22 on the 1.6 sensor cameras is better.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
