Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon 16-35/2.8 L II  (Read 10865 times)


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2007, 07:00:37 PM »

Other improvements than the greater diameter include ring-type USM, or "real USM" as some people like to call it.

It must be a misprint on their site but I believe both versions have "ring USM".  In fact, if you put the 24-70 f/2.8l (or 70-200 f/4L) in the comparison, you will find "USM" as opposed to "ring USM" as the characteristic listed, even though both versions use "ring USM" in reality.


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
Canon 16-35/2.8 L II
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2007, 05:47:49 PM »

Why do you think Canon came with so many models not significantly different from each other with respect to their performance.

EOS-1D Mark II N
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uhhh... the 5D and 1D Mark II N and 1D mark III are nothing... NOTHING... alike.

The 5D is a nice, full-frame prosumer camera.  It snaps 3 shots per second, 12 MP.  It has nice build quality, but it's not hardy in the rain like the 1 series cameras are.  A few folks had their 5Ds crap out in Antarctica during a 2 hour shoot in the rain.

The 1D II and 1D III are professional sports cameras.  The II does 8 fps, the III does 10 fps.  The difference between 3 and 8 or 10 fps for sports is... COLOSSAL.

The performance differences for these cameras could not be greater.  If you want to do landscapes, on a budget compared to the 1Ds mark II, you should go with the 5D.  If you need speed, because you cover sports, auto racing, or whatever... the 1D is the camera.  I have one and it's fantastic for how fast it is.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up