>> |
Anonymous
>>184862I'm not astounded by the 17-40's image quality
I'm not astounded either. But it _does_ look better than the 18-55 IS, both unprocessed. The images do come out better in camera.
>> Knowing my lens is tough enough to take my abuse is worth the extra cost.
The extra cost, for me, would be good wide open, constant f/4, build quality, focus speed but most importantly, it's compatible with film and full frame.
>>184863
That test is with the old 18-55. I think my 18-55 IS is close to the 17-40 I had but not quite there.
|