Bill wrote:
"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in
message ...

"RichA" wrote in message
And the contenders are (in no specific order):

1. Canon 17-85 IS
2. Canon 17-40 L

I have a Canon 17-40 L and it is sharp as a tack, it is my stay on
the
camera lens.

Not on the edge, unless you really stop it down.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694

that's what i meant...people (who own it) just like to exagerrate a
bit...

It's not an exaggeration at all. The lense is well known to be that
good, and my own experience with it agrees with the general consensus.
You're free to believe what you want, but believing RichA is like
believing that Superman is real - it's all in a fantasy world.

For some background - Rich is well known in these groups as a troll
and a questionable source of information and/or facts. He doesn't own
the equipment he claims to have "tested" nor is there any evidence
that he even owns a camera, let alone a DSLR.

Now for the facts - the image Rich posted is of questionable origin.
The reason it's questioned is three-fold:

1 - The image sucks for a 17-40 which I know performs much better.

2 - The image size is wrong for the 30D - original size is 4368x2912
which is the 5D file size at 12.7 megapixels (30D is 3504x2336 8.2mp).

I shot with a 30D and a Nikon D200 at the same time. First 30D I'd
seen in Toronto.
It wasn't a 5D. No processing other than an increase in brightness.

3 - There is no exif data and we have no idea if the image was
processed or not.



And finally, here's a link to a comparison of the 17-40 and 16-35
lenses from Canon. The results agree with my own personal experience:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

You may wish to do yourself a favour and question anything Rich has to
say. Personally, I filter his posts so I don't have to see his
trolling drivel.

All I did was post the image. If you'll note the central contrast,
aberration control and sharpness are fine, unlike the edge. The lens
was stopped down but only slightly.