Digital BW, The Print

>But what _is_ the best wide-angle Canon glass for those applications
>(which are also mine)?

>It's easy for me to choose among Canon's longer and normal lenses
>because the image stabilization feature on some of their lenses is so
>important, and getting more important, to me.

>But I'm agonizing between Canon's two "ultra-wide" 16-35mm f/2.8 and
>17-40mm f/4.0 L zooms. Because all I've heard is that one is better
>at the lower end while the other is better at the higher end. If not,
>I think I'd prefer the faster 16-35mm despite the price difference.

>And I'm also wondering whether it might not be better to give up the
>benefit of zooming and get the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L prime lenses. I
>have the 35mm f/2.0 prime and the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom and think I
>see a big difference between them - even with (film) cameras nowhere
>near as good as the 1Ds MK II. So if the f/1.4 L primes yield better
>images than the f/2.8 & f/4.0 L zooms, then by using the primes I'd
>get the better-image benefit plus at least two stops of speed.

>Or at least so it seems to me. I'd appreciate any advice about all this.
>--
>Sam

Sam,

I follow some pretty pragmatic guidelines when choosing lenses - and greatly
influenced by price. I shoot Nikon, so I have no practical experience with
the lenses you're considering. But the application you're shopping for seems
like a PC lens might be your best choice. I have used the Nikon 35mm f3.5,
and did a fairly good job at making modest perspective corrections - nowhere
near what a view camera can do, but I found it useful none-the-less.

That said, I stick with zooms theses days. The optics, as demonstrated in
recent tests, are nearly as good as primes. And every instance of not
changing lenses is one less chance for getting dirt on my sensor.

Bill Cheadle



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004