Why 18 35???

Started Jan 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,693
Like?
Re: Why 18 35???
In reply to Raymond Cho, Jan 30, 2013

Raymond Cho wrote:

I have the older 18-35 that I got for 350US. Pretty good and sweet spot at f/8 or f/11 me thinks. I think people will like it if they don't demand too much from it, at the end of the day the image is printed anyway and viewed by many non-photographers or just hobbyists. Galen Rowell used the 18-35 AF-D with his F100 shooting Velvia. He mentioned in his book, that someone he knows has better technical images with the 17-35mm but that person says his images isn't as good as Galen's but his view was that it is about using anything except the equipment to draw the person's eye. If you look around the net, youtube, magazines there are plenty of people (pro's) who uses a Canon 17-40L and not the f/2.8 version. One doesn't need all the labels on the lens barrel .... The 17-35mm f/2.8 would probably get updated soon, with a 77mm filter thread.

The problem I'd say is that with something like the D800 the demand for resolution has increased beyond 35mm film, on a D700 I expect it would be a very nice performer.

The Canon 16-35mm 2.8 seems to be optimized for center performance to me, espeically wide open with a view for more action based shooting where as the 17-40mm offers similar performance stopped down. The old 18-35mm on the other hand clearly lags behind the 16-35mm VR in that reguard so you don't have any obvious advanatge.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow