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
==============================================
|