17-35L or 14L older version ?

[TenD]

I still lurk around here, but rarely participate. I've kind of grown away from photography after having my tripod stolen from Yellowstone. I don't know why that was a turning point for me, but it was. I traded around some equipment, and still take photos, but it's slowed down considerably.

[TheWengler]

I still lurk around here, but rarely participate. I've kind of grown away from photography after having my tripod stolen from Yellowstone. I don't know why that was a turning point for me, but it was. I traded around some equipment, and still take photos, but it's slowed down considerably.

Did the tripod get stolen out of your car?

[TenD]

it was my own fault, I forgot it outside my car. But I fully expected someone to turn in a $1500 tripod setup...no one did. I hope they're happy with their new set up. For me it threw me into a funk that I've still to recover from. It just really bothers me someone would take something that was not theirs and just keep it.

[cwphoto]

I'd stick with the 17-35/2.8. The 14/2.8 really needs a FF to shine IMO. On a 1D is doesn;t have the same drama. The first version is a bit soft by todays standards and is easily prone to flare which made it difficult for the work I used it for (interiors under artificial light).