> > F. Craig Callahan wrote: > > > Not exactly what I was saying. Indeed, if I were making a > > recommendation for a lens in > > this focal range, I would suggest that for most people the > > 20-35/3.5~4.5 would be a > > better choice than any of the wide-angle "L" zooms. Of > > course, there are those who have > > a specific need for what the "L" zooms offer, in which case > > the more expensive lenses > > (or a fixed-focal-length alternative) are the better choice. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Actually according to svery test I have seen and my own used the > Canon EF lens quality is ranked as follows: > > 20-35mm F2.8L > 20-35mm F3.5-4.5 (but much less expensive) > 17-35mm F2.8L > > If you really want a bargain for your EOS its the Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX. > > Peter K
Hi Peter, This is also the way I rank the Canon EF lenses. The EF 20-35 2.8L is an excellent lens but slower AF, larger, heavier and more expensive. I have just seem a bunch of excellent condition EF 20-35 2.8L lenses with hood and caps at the Buena Park Camera show for $600-650. The EF 17-35 2.8L were easily found for $700-800 in similar condition. On the other hand, EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM lenses were nowhere to be seen in any condition. Hmmm... Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
