>First of all, I find there to be too much distortion on the wide-angle
>zooms. ...People's heads look as though they're being sucked
>sideways into another dimension.
Robbi,
I think the distortion you may be experiencing is not really true wide angle
distortion at all. Most people complain about the bending of straight lines
(especially near the edges) of building and such when using wide angles.
This is barrel distortion. What you may be confusing for distortion is the
perspective that wide angle lenses give you. Since you refer to using the
lens for portraits, I assume you are using a wide angle lense and getting
really close. This makes the shape of the head appear distorted, because
certain features (noses in particular) are out of proportion to what we are
used to seeing with our naked eye... from a more natural distance. I would
suggest that if you are looking to improve your portraits, try a longer
focal length. Usually starting around 85mm, with many folks prefering 100,
or 135 mm. These focal lenghts will force you to back away from your
subject a bit, and this make facial feature appear more proportional to what
they really are. For what it's worth on wide angles, prime lenses generally
do have less distortion (but they still make funny looking portraits).
Primes also tend to be sharper, and have less flare. I have a 20-35 3.5-4.5
USM, but it's not as sharp as my Sigma 24, F2.8. The Sigma was twice as
cheap too, but not quite as much fun as the 20mm end of the Canon zoom.
Cheers, JD
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
