Check out this review:
<http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html>
This guy has previously denigrated the original 16-35 and has been on a
long campaign to find the finest wide angles around to attach to his
Canon. Prior loves are the 18 and 24mm Zuikos, Leica 19mm, Zeiss 21mm
and the Nikon 17-35. He buys multiple samples, tests them, keeps the
best and sells off the rest.
In the test above he rates the 16-35 II above the Zuiko 18 and almost as
good as the Leica 19. A big difference from the original.
Chuck Norcutt
ws wrote:
> I have the 16-35 first version. I'm not super impressed by it and
> I wonder what the II version improves upon?
>
> I do have the Can*n 70-200/2.8 IS lens and every shot from it is very nice.
> Probably the best lens I have ever used in that range. I'm generally not
> all that impressed with Can*n lens, but this one is nice. the /4 version
> may be a good alternative.
>
> Wayne
>
> At 10:22 PM 1/17/2009, you wrote:
>> Look at the test report, I belive the later Canon lenses are much better
>> than the old third parties, if I'm a pro I will purchase both 16-35 II and
>> 70-200/4 IS (or 2.8 IS), the total system cost is only around $5400, get a
>> 50mm and 100 macro then it should covered everything you needed. The total
>> cost is less than what I have invested on the OM system. The problem is you
>> need a very accurate AF to make use of the quality of the lenses.
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|