11-01-2010, 10:43 PM
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288615327' post='3866']
I said 17-40L on FF is better than 10-22 on APS-C[/quote]
If Photozone is the only lens testing website in cyberspace, I am inclined to believe the performance of the 17-40 f/4L on FF is totally UNDERwhelming when compared to 10-22 on APS-C. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
Fortunately, there are [url="http://bit.ly/cU3ozW"]other websites[/url] that prove otherwise. In fact, I'll say that strictly from a resolution point of view, the performance of 17-40 on FF is similar to 10-22 on APS-C.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288615327' post='3866']
BTW, try shooting a 10-22 with high contrast conditions, do the same with 17-40L, and tell me what you see ... You might be amazed.[/quote]
Do you have a picture to demonstrate this? I am not clear which aspect you are referring to.
I said 17-40L on FF is better than 10-22 on APS-C[/quote]
If Photozone is the only lens testing website in cyberspace, I am inclined to believe the performance of the 17-40 f/4L on FF is totally UNDERwhelming when compared to 10-22 on APS-C. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
Fortunately, there are [url="http://bit.ly/cU3ozW"]other websites[/url] that prove otherwise. In fact, I'll say that strictly from a resolution point of view, the performance of 17-40 on FF is similar to 10-22 on APS-C.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288615327' post='3866']
BTW, try shooting a 10-22 with high contrast conditions, do the same with 17-40L, and tell me what you see ... You might be amazed.[/quote]
Do you have a picture to demonstrate this? I am not clear which aspect you are referring to.