Because the 20-35mm was always regarded as better than the 17-35mm F2.8L. Makes me feel glad I have the 30D and not the 5D. I like the 10-22mm, the equivalent of the 16-35mm on my camera.
Peter K ----- Original Message ---- From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:51:48 AM Subject: Re: EOS Wide Angle Zooms & posts I got the first try... I'm not sure why you say, "that's a shame." The 17-35 didn't, in my opinion, even qualify as "OK." And I think the reason that it's better at the edges is that it doesn't have to go as wide as the 16-35. At 20mm, the two are very close, and the 16-35 is a little sharper in the center. I guess I should have continued the thought, huh? Skip Middleton ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
