I always check multiple sources before I comment. I have friends that have/had
both and they all said 17-40 is better especially for digital. You can also
check here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
At the wide end the 17-40 was a winner, at the long end it was same as my
experience, a little poorer.
C.H.Ling
-------Original Message-------
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT: 5D Sample Images
> Sent: 25 Aug '05 01:13
>
> The Pop Photo test of the 16-35 shows it to be a better performer than
> the 17-40.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
> > I'm sure the final print will not be better and of course if you view it
> > from distance you may not see it. I'm intereted to know which is the best
> > superwide zoom from C*non. All I see and heard the 17-40/4 is the best from
> > them, I also had one in the past. Actually, they only have the 16-35/2.8 to
> > compare, it is not as good and the older 17-35 is even poorer.
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List
> nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
-------Original Message-------
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|