| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2007 10:03:58 PM · #1 |
...the better lens?
Ignoring price which one?
The Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM Lens....OR
the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Lens?
I am curious about distortion, clarity, and crispness.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:05:19 PM · #2 |
Just a clarifying question: are you sure that second one is USM?
It doesn't say that on the DPC Canon lenses page: //www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?MANUFACTURER_ID[]=1
Message edited by author 2007-06-03 22:05:42.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:07:50 PM · #3 |
To double clarify you mean the first because the second is listed!
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:08:36 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
To double clarify you mean the first because the second is listed! |
LOL. Right!
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:10:51 PM · #5 |
I just copied and pasted the lens, so I think so.
Let me check out Canon directly.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:14:45 PM · #6 |
Directly from canons web site.
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:15:54 PM · #7 |
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:17:08 PM · #8 |
For a $1600 Canon L series lens, it better have a USM drive...
As far as I know, the 16-35 is going to be better. It's newer and therefore has the latest in lens technology and construction. I haven't used either so this is just my assumption.
Here's a direct comparison
//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
Message edited by author 2007-06-03 22:18:19.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:18:13 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Directly from canons web site.
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM |
LET ME YELL SINCE U MISSED IT
I had already corrected him he meant the first!
17-35 isnt listed on DPC as USM
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:19:37 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
LET ME YELL SINCE U MISSED IT
I had already corrected him he meant the first!
17-35 isnt listed on DPC as USM |
It is a USM lens, every site that I've looked at says it is and all the photos say "Ultrasonic" on them.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2007 10:22:26 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
06/03/2007 11:25:34 PM · #12 |
Does anyone have personal testimony on these lenses?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2007 09:27:53 AM · #13 |
|
|
|
06/04/2007 10:16:37 AM · #14 |
It's going to be almost impossible to find someone who has experience with both, and even harder to find someone who's done a direct comparison. The 16-35 II has been shipping for just a few weeks, and the 17-35 is a discontinued model, replaced by the original 16-35.
From initial reports of the 16-35 II, it's better than it's ancestor, and if it's not decidedly the best of the three, I'd be extremely surprised. |
|
|
|
06/04/2007 10:19:07 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's going to be almost impossible to find someone who has experience with both, and even harder to find someone who's done a direct comparison. The 16-35 II has been shipping for just a few weeks, and the 17-35 is a discontinued model, replaced by the original 16-35.
From initial reports of the 16-35 II, it's better than it's ancestor, and if it's not decidedly the best of the three, I'd be extremely surprised. |
Ooh Ooh and you get that whole 1mm of wider angle viewing! Sory I had to. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 06:42:17 PM EDT.
