samuel_elliott

<p>Much more detailed comparison of the lenses (full Head-to-Head review) here:<br>

http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-to-Head-Lens-Review-Canon-EF-85mm-f-1-2L-USM-vs-Canon-EF-85mm-f-1-8-USM/Bokeh-Effect.html</p>

<p>Thanks for all the info.<br>

Is the 16-35 II alot better than the original 16-35 in respect to vignetting? I have been looking for a fast wide angle since I bought into the EOS line, but I dont like having to create actions to always remove the dark corners.</p>

<p>I bought the 17-40 f/4 because the vignetting on the 16-35 f/2.8 (original) was so awful. I've been interested to see how the new 16-35 iimproved on that.</p>

<br />

http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-2-Head-Lens-Review-Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2-8L-II-USM-Ultra-Wide-Zoom-vs-Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4L-USM-Ultra-Wide-Zoom/Resolution-and-Contrast.html<br />

<br />

In these tests, the cheaper L lens performs just as well as the more expensive wide angle zoom. Probably good to know..<br /> <br /> Anyone else have similar findings? Or opposing,,,,?<br /> <br /> Cheers,<br /> Rich

<p>Seems to me the issue in question is what ultimately defines "medium format digital" - is it the size of the chip (e.g. recording media, like in film days) or pixel density? The S2 claims to be medium format because of the size of its sensor, but an interesting comparison review I just read between the canon 1ds mark iii and nikon d3x seemed to think the step-down models (canon 5d mark ii and nikon d700) performed as well for a LOT less money.<br>

The interesting thing is on the canon side, the price gap was about $5k, but the resolution and chip size was about the same. On the nikon side, the chip size is the same, but one of the cameras has nearly twice theresolution. It also costs about 4x the price.<br>

http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-2-Head-Review-Nikon-D3x-vs-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III/Introduction-The-Matchup.html<br>

The 1ds mark iii and d3x and the lens lines/alternate bodies next to them also make them both a much better choice than the Leica to me.</p>

<p>I'd say go for it - this is a rare opportunity if the price is right. The D300s is already out, and soon there will be another. Bottom line, you can always get another mid-range dslr.</p>

<p>just my 2 cents..</p>

<p>I found a review with a similar comparison showing the canon 1Ds mark III vs the nikon d3x:<br>

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/08/release-dates-a-review/<br>

Pretty much said the nikon D3x was a better design, but the image quality of the canon 1ds mark III won out. Kind of expected..</p>