View Single Post
  #5  
Old 19-07-2006, 02:26 PM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,540
I second that. I have the 17-40 F4 L and 70-200 F4 L. Have had them both from back when I had my film EOS 300. They both give perfect images. If only telescopes showed so little distortion and false colour.

I also chose these over the F2.8's - I couldn't justify the weight or the cost of F2.8. The 70-200L is very compact for it's quality and zoom range. The weight makes them great for piggyback photography, although my purchase of them was for daytime landscape/nature stuff.

As it turns out their zoom ranges are great for astro photography. Lots of great astro images with them sofar.

The 17-40L is weather sealed so it's water resistant (not proof) and dust proof. The 70-200L F4 is not, you need the 70-200 F2.8L IS to get the weather seals on that.

Roger.
Reply With Quote