Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think the the 16-35/2.8 may be one of those lenses which had good ones and bad ones. I was never happy with the one I had. I gave it about 6 months - tried it at every f-stop - never happy with even one frame from it. Maybe I had a lemon. And while some speak down about the 24-70/2.8 - I seem to have a good one. I prefer the Leica primes in these focal lengths - but when I feel the need of AF and fast working zoom - this one performs admirably - at least my copy of it. I must say that I don't enjoy the size of these AF zooms with their too-large lens shades, etc. at all. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com On Jul 31, 2006, at 4:21 PM, F?lix L?pez de Maturana wrote: > The 16-35mm f2.8 is not up to the Leica R wide zoom but much better > than his unjustified urban legend says. The 24-70mm and 24-105mm > Canon zooms seem to me formidable zooms under the point of view of > resolution but have lots of not vignetting or distortion, > fortunately repaired with PS. I like very much the Canon 100-400mm > IS a true comfortable zoom with his image stabilization. I regret > very much Leica does not go for the full frame way so my camera now > is the Canon EOS 5D. My 1Ds MkII is too big and too weighty. I hope > this help.