[OM] Re: OT: 5D Sample Images

[Earl Dunbar]

As Frank on "Everybody Loves Raymond" would say: "Holy crap!"

Earl

Moose wrote:

>chling wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>The 16-35 is certainly no match on a FF Can*n to a Zuiko 28/2 in the
>center <http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/266053>!
>
>Moose
>
>
>  
>



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================