Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]the 16-35 was the first lens I purchased when I moved into the Canon digital world. it lasted through two weeks testing. gone. on the smaller sensors the 10-22 proved superb (but slow). Fond regards, George george@imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Dec 16, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Alan Magayne-Roshak wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 Tina Manley <images@comporium.net>wrote: > >> ...Also, some Canon lenses are worse than others. The 16-35 zoom is >> absolutely awful. The 24/1.4 L is pretty bad. Wides are much worse > than longer lenses. > ============================================================ > Tell me about it! I hate that 16-35, but it's the widest lens the > office has, > so I grit my teeth when I have to use it, even stopped down. I > miss using fast > prime lenses on film where I could shoot even at f/2 and have good > results. > We still have some fast Nikkor manual lenses and a Nikkor-EOS > adapter, but > the Canon screen is so hard to use with them I can't get consistent > focus.(except for my > 35mm f/3.5 PC Nikkor, which seems to snap into focus easier, and is > very sharp). > > Alan > > Alan Magayne-Roshak, Senior Photographer > UPAA POY 1978 > University Information Technology Services > University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alan+Magayne-Roshak/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information