Sorry, Moose, missed your post about the 17-35; and even if I hadn't missed
it, I don't have experience with the 17-35 so can't comment. I do, however,
currently have a 16-35/2.8 as well as a 70-200/2.8IS and used to have the
24-70 2.8. With the Canon lenses, there doesn't seem to be much variation
from copy to copy when referencing primes. However, there has been pretty
widespread speculation that quality control varies quite a bit with the
zooms. My 16-35, for instance, outperforms both my 35mm 1.4L and my 24mm
1.4L primes in the center. I've repeated the tests over and over because I
didn't believe it myself until I rechecked... and rechecked again (tests
done at f2.8 of course, to level the playing field for all the lenses, and
again at f/8). However, the 16-35 is not as sharp in the corners, which is
the reason I'm looking to try to acquire a zuiko 18mm to see if it will
retain corner sharpness for better landscapes. SOMEONE SELL ME AN 18/3.5
PLEASE!!!
The 24-70 is a great lens, but very, very heavy. I gave up lugging it
around when I tried out a known-to-be-sharp copy of a Tamron 28-75 2.8; the
Tamrons have an even worse reputation for quality vagaries... significant
numbers of them require sending back to the factory for recalibration; even
NIB models. Folks on the FM list regularly pay MORE for a used copy than a
new copy, if the used copy is coming from a certified member who is known to
be a straight shooter and he vouches for its sharpness. Also the Japanese
made early models seem better than the newer Chinese models. My copy appears
to be at least as sharp as the 24-70 canon lens was, although color
saturation is just a bit off compared to the canon... and of course the
canon has macro function and the tamron does not. But the tamron is so much
lighter, it's worth it for a carry lens, resulting in my selling the 24-70.
Good thing about Canon lenses is, if you buy them in good condition on the
used market, it's not so much an expenditure as an investment; you can
usually recoupe what you put into it, if you chose wisely when you bought it
and didn't overpay. I choose to look at it as an investment, and in the
meantime, I get free rental of the lens/unlimited use out of it.
I've owned 3 copies of the 70-200 2.8 IS lens, and I can say that they also
do have some variation. I kept the sharpest one and sold the rest. Most of
the helicopter rescue shots on this page were done with the 70-200... the IS
function is wonderful, by the way:
http://photobucket.com/albums/v722/wtani/ Click on 'turtles' near the top
to see some shots of Hawaiian turtles sunning themselves and playing with
tourists at a popular beach called Laniakea, on the North Shore of Oahu,
Hawaii. All of the turtle shots were done with the 70-200 as well.
regards,
walt tani
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:40:49 -0700
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: [photos] OT (taken with digital camera)
R. Jackson wrote:
>Some really good points to consider. Thanks. You're right about the
>zooms being nice, too. I guess it's just a question of getting used
>to the sticker shock. What appear to be the nice zooms in the C@non
>lineup at the 16-35mm f2.8 ($1400), the 24-70mm f2.8 ($1100) and the
>70-200mm f2.8 IS ($1700).
>
OK, read my recent post about Can*n lenses. The 16-35/2.8 isn't as good
optically as the 17-35/4. I don't know much about the 24-70/2.8, but
I'll bet it isn't any better optically than the 24-85/3.5-4.5. The
70-200/2.8 is a pretty much universally acclaimed lens, but big and
expensive. Do you really want to carry such a monster around? The
70-200/4 is an excellent lens that's cheaper and samller and lighter.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|