JMeurisse
08-21-2007, 06:55 AM
Hi all,
I own an EOS 350D and a 28-105 USM lens and I am looking for a wide angle lense.
I am very interested in both the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and the 17-70 f/4 L.
The first one seems very attractive because of its f/2.8 upperture, and obviously its IS system. However, I have heard it was quite "cheap" and was getting dust easily. Finally, I am affraid of the fact this lense is not an "L" one.
The second one seems also interesting, mainly beacause it is an "L" series, because it is robust and quite protected. However, I am quite affraid of the f/4 which seems very limited under low light conditions.
My final target is to get very sharp and realistic pictures: so, would it be preferable to choose the "L" for its sharpness despite of its f/4 limitation, or do I have to go for the IS and f/2.8?
Many thanks in advance :)
I own an EOS 350D and a 28-105 USM lens and I am looking for a wide angle lense.
I am very interested in both the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and the 17-70 f/4 L.
The first one seems very attractive because of its f/2.8 upperture, and obviously its IS system. However, I have heard it was quite "cheap" and was getting dust easily. Finally, I am affraid of the fact this lense is not an "L" one.
The second one seems also interesting, mainly beacause it is an "L" series, because it is robust and quite protected. However, I am quite affraid of the f/4 which seems very limited under low light conditions.
My final target is to get very sharp and realistic pictures: so, would it be preferable to choose the "L" for its sharpness despite of its f/4 limitation, or do I have to go for the IS and f/2.8?
Many thanks in advance :)