Hi I am in a confusion which of these lenses to get. Dont tell me it depends on my requirement! Yes ofcouse it depends on me. Tell me what you would do after listening to my current gear list. I need your suggestions.

Here is what I have now: EOS3 with 28-105mm USM, 70-200 F4, 50mm 1.8. I am surprised to see the results of my 70-200 and which is forcing me to go for either 28- 70mm L for replacing my 28-105mm USM or 17-35mm L. I consider 17-35 because I have 50mm 1.8 which is a prime and gives good result. And have good glass from 70-200. I think if I go for 17-35 I would have a great combination of 17-35, 50 and 70-200. What do you say?

Thanks!

-- John (eosquestions@yahoo.com), May 10, 2002

Answers

Hi John, I guess you've just answered you're own question, 17- 35,50,70-200.what else do you need. You have a zoom lens 28-105mm if you dont want to carry the rest of the equipment. Good luck, hope this helps.

-- Bob (borkas@ozemail.com.au), May 10, 2002.

Don't expect the 17-35 to live up to the others. Although an L series, it isn't amazing optically, having made compromise in outright quality for range and speed instead. The new 16-35 F2.8L is a great improvement in terms of optics, according to tests on the web. If the speed isn't an issue, and the extreme wide end isn't a necessity, then look at the 20-35 F3.5-4.5 USM, since in the overlapping range, it is generally regarded as being equal to the 17- 35 in optics.

The 28-70 F2.8L lives up to the L series reputation much better, and is generally acclaimed to be very good optically. I'd say look at the 16-35, or the 20-35 (either the old 2.8L for optics, or the USM for light weight and low price), but avoid the 17-35, since it will not live up to the expectations you now have, based on the 50mm and 70-200 F4L.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

Hi John, As Isaac said, I'd like to point out, if you've got the money 16-35mmL, 20-35mmL/USM would be a better choice. 17-35mmL ain't that good "nowhere as good as the 20-35mmL" for quality.

-- Bob Bubev (borkas@ozemail.com.au), May 12, 2002.

hi john,

just one question: why get a zoom at all? most people tend to use the widest end of a wide angle zoom anyway. a prime is much better corrected because designers don't have to make so many compromises (all lenses are compromises, but zooms even more so). in this case that means a super-wide angle like the 17-35 will have pretty wicked distortion and vignetting when compared to, say, the 20mm 2.8 prime.

tschuess and good luck, carl

-- carl weller (carlweller@yahoo.com), May 12, 2002.