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/
|