16-35 2.8 mark II or 17-55 2.8

Tommy DiGiovanni , Jul 29, 2008; 12:23 p.m.

Has anyone used the 16-35 mark 2? and how does it compare to the 17-55?

thanks

Responses

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... Next Last

Tommy DiGiovanni , Jul 29, 2008; 01:30 p.m.

Has anyone used the 16-35 mark II? How does it compare to the 17-55?

Ken Papai , Jul 29, 2008; 02:19 p.m.

YES. A lot more favorable.

Leo C , Jul 29, 2008; 02:30 p.m.

I'm wondering the same thing myself

Tommy DiGiovanni , Jul 29, 2008; 02:41 p.m.

I have an opportunity to get one UV with the filter for $900. I get to test it out and the current owner says its mint. I assume I should take it or at least look at it?

Tommy DiGiovanni , Jul 29, 2008; 02:42 p.m.

UV meaning the date plus a UV filter.

Mendel Leisk , Jul 29, 2008; 03:01 p.m.

Tommy, I'm lost. What are you going to look at?

M. Scott Clay , Jul 29, 2008; 03:02 p.m.

Ken,

Why do you say "A lot more favorable". I tested the 16-35mII in a store and didn't see any improvement over my 17-55. My copy of the 17-55 was great on my 40D, so what's more favorable in a 16-35mII?

Tommy DiGiovanni , Jul 29, 2008; 03:05 p.m.

"Tommy, I'm lost. What are you going to look at?"

I am going to test out the 16-35 mark II and possibly purchase it if its the shape he claims its in.

Antonio Flores , Jul 29, 2008; 03:58 p.m.

I would not buy a 16-35 for a 40D having a 17-55 (I have the 16-35 for 5D), but I don't have the EF-S lens. But Tommy, you know all this. You are an resercher. Anyway, if it is a bargain, you always can sell one of the two lenses.

I read in a thread that you had a 5D. This can change the things.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... Next Last

Notify me of Responses