btw - i just read on Canon`s danish website - that the 17-40 4 L - is out of production ? but it said nothing about any replacement. guess its no point in a link to that in here beacuse u dont speak danish - but antway here it is. Canon 5D Mk II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
grego Cream of the Crop  8,819 posts Likes: 2 Joined May 2005 Location: UCLA More info | Nilsen wrote: btw - i just read on Canon`s danish website - that the 17-40 4 L - is out of production ? but it said nothing about any replacement. guess its no point in a link to that in here beacuse u dont speak danish - but antway here it is. http://www.canon.dk …7-40mm_f-4l_usm/index.asp  anyone heard about this ? It's not. It's a mistake. It was already talked about on fredmiranda's site, recently too. Go UCLA
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lenny_D Member 63 posts Joined Jun 2003 Location: Netherlands More info | I vote for the 10-22 mm EF-S. IMO the best option on a 20D. I own one and I love it. Don't forget that is also widely recognized as "near L quality"!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lenny_D wrote: I vote for the 10-22 mm EF-S. IMO the best option on a 20D. I own one and I love it. Don't forget that is also widely recognized as "near L quality"! Good point - some of the EF-S lenses are pretty good i have the EF-S 60MM 2,8 Macro - and its very nice - and sharp as --. Once i had the 17-85 but that was bad - very bad. Not sharp at all. i switched it for the 60. Canon 5D Mk II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Thornfield Senior Member  747 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2004 Location: Christchurch New Zealand More info | Jan 09, 2006 06:39 | #20 Judging by some of the comments you'd think that people drive with the letter L stuck to the windscreen of their cars because unless its got an L on it it aint worth looking through Relationships are like photography, it has to click.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LesterWareham Moderator  More info | guitarman wrote: I have had two 17-40L lenses for shooting landscapes. All of what I shot for landscapes has been between F8 and F16. If you shoot landscapes at less than F4 then I guess it would be worth it. I am seriously now considering the 10-22. Every day I'm getting closer to saying the heck with the fact that it may become obsolete and worthless for resale if Canon abandons 1.6 crop bodies. I think for a 1.6 crop a combination of 10-22 and 24-70 or 24-105 makes good sense for a basic zoom system. Gear List
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ddelallata Goldmember  1,191 posts Joined May 2005 Location: Brownsville, Tx USA More info | Lester Wareham wrote: I think for a 1.6 crop a combination of 10-22 and 24-70 or 24-105 makes good sense for a basic zoom system. Look at my sig.... Dr. David de la Llata
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LesterWareham Moderator More info | ddelallata wrote: Look at my sig.... you forgot something  Well I did say basic. A 200mm is quite long on 1.6 crop. Gear List
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2506 guests, 102 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
