On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:39:33 +0900, Karen Nakamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>> >I also just bought a 16-35mm f/2.8 L lens and am excited to test it >> >out on my 10D. >> >>Also a nice lens, but a tripod is also needed. And it's not wide >>enough for real wide angle. And again, a heavy lens. > >Huh??? Are you speaking from experience? Not wide enough for a real >wide? It needs a tripod? I can only imagine that you've never used >it. If you've used a wider rectilinear zoom w/ f2.8, I'd like to >hear about it. sorry for such a long drawn out post, oh well It seems to me you're placing a lot of emphasis on the f2.8 here. Maybe you should check the Photodo rating for the 17-35L. since they don't have the 16-35L listed yet. At 17mm wide open f2.8 it's only a .70 rating. The PD ratings wide open at 24 and 35mm are.66 and .67 wide open. They don't look that hot even stopped down to f8 as a matter of fact. The 28-135 at 28mm wide open at f3.5 rates higher at .73. Now I've heard that the newer 16-35L is a bit sharper, but I don't think you're going to get an incredible difference that you seem to be expecting. It's possible you had a bad example of that lens, who knows. The 28-70L is not rated very high on Photodo either. I consider anything from 20mm down to be real wide angle, and that's in 35mm terms. That means for the 10d, I need wider than 16mm. Which is why I'm considering the Sigma 12-24 for my wide angle lens. I won't miss the spread between 28 and 24mm. Any lens without IS needs a tripod to hand hold. Otherwise you lose all that sharpness. You _can_ shoot any lens without a tripod and get a good picture, but you can't brag about the L glass and be honest if you did shoot without tripod. And, like I said, using a tripod is not an option for me. I am only going by the Photodo tests of the 28-135, and of course what others have said about it, I haven't got it yet. Of course now everyone can chime in 'but don't believe Photodo'. Well, they've seemed pretty accurate to me in the past. While opening up the L lens to f2.8 gains you some speed, you lose in DOF and sharpness. Not to mention the loss of anything above 70mm without changing lenses. There are always tradeoffs, as you can see. Methinks the L hype is a bit overdone. Now they do have some VERY sharp lenses like the 70-200L, the 100 macro and the 135 f2. And the L lenses are solidly built no doubt about that. Like I said, I might be buying an L lens if they had one with a longer range than 24-70 and IS. And, I'm still hoping that Canon will come through with an alternative to the Smegma 12-24 that's decent. -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com/ Standard Poodles for fun BMW motorcycle for pleasure * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
