Quote (Eek @ Dec 19 2010 01:16pm)

T_T, so much fail on my part

Why don't you use it no more? Addicted to primes now? kekek. I still want a 35L for when i go to NYC next month.



http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/not_sure_if_srs.jpg

Quote (onepagememory @ Dec 19 2010 08:00pm)

The only lenses I'm probably gonna keep are the 35L (once I buy it), the 85 1.2L, the 135L, the 70-700 2.8 L IS II, and the 100mm macro. The rest will be sold to fund for a 1D IV or a car.

Quote (Land0n @ Dec 19 2010 06:12pm)

The 17-40 is definitely not sharper than the 24-70. I have the 17-40 and it is only as sharp, if not even less then the 18-55 IS. The 17-40 is better and color saturation and contrast, but is very similar to the 18-55 in sharpness.

Before anyone says I have a bad copy, google comparisons between the 17-40 and 18-55 IS and you'll find there are many similar reviews. This is not to say the 17-40 is a bad lens. There are a lot of other advantages when comparing to the 18-55IS, including full frame compatible, constant aperture, faster Af, and better build quality but sharpness definitely isn't one.

Quote (bergmann @ Dec 20 2010 09:20pm)

Exactly.  The 17-40 is a superior lens in every way but sharpness to the 18-55 IS, which is a shame.  When I saw the picture of the dog above, I thought 17-40 even though they were talking about the 24-70.  Anyway.  No I wouldn't say you have a bad copy, although I have seen images from owners of exceptionally good copies of the 17-40 that are very very sharp.  So if anyone gets one of those, hang on to it.

Quote (Eek @ Dec 20 2010 06:25pm)

I think it's a really good copy considering the crop came from this..

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m223/Jdmhoodz/_MG_8149.jpg

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m223/Jdmhoodz/Screenshot2010-12-14at35658PM.png