[tonycheng]

我好想比較下 A16 同 17-40f/4L。一個大光圈,一個係L質素。

見好多人講A16 好SHARP好SHARP,唔知有冇17-40f/4L咁 SHARP呢?
有冇人可以post D 相出來SIDE BY SIDE比較,睇下差幾遠!!

如果$唔係問題,你會買A16 f/2.8還是 17-40f/4L?

[K_C]

一定17-40f/4L啦, 有L ma!

[ponytony]

see this:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=2

[kester]

i think the 17-40 can be used two ways, the FF and the APS-C. in terms of its range.
The 17-40L and the 16-35L are the only two ultra wide zoom range lenses available to the Canon Full Frame bodies. They are best quality comparable to the Nikon 17-35 2.8 which a lot of news reporters use.



It's a little unfair to put it on the comparison. But comparing the
1. Canon EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS
2. Tamron 17-50 2.8 SP
3. Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX

the Tamron is a big WINNER!!! the Canon ef-s is good but it's 69xx.

[tonycheng]

Thanks ponytony.條Link入邊的比較,好似A16比17-40仲SHARP同實好多,尤其是中央,旁邊就差少少.不過唔差好遠。


但係睇返以下條Link D相片,17-40又SHARP 好多bo(雖然唔係同SETTING)! CONTRAST 又靚D, Chromatic Aberrations 又正D咁。

17-40
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm
A16
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

真係唔知邊枝好!!

[kester]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=2&Lens=400&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396


Tamron is alot sharper. u have to use the same body to test(30D)

[cutter_lee]

how about 17-55 f/2.8??

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=22056345