It's getting obvious to me that the 20-35 is a more useful lens than the 20mm.
But the 20mm supposedly distorts less, is sharper, is a 2.8 instead of
3.5-4.5, and takes my 72mm filters.
I will go to a local store and try them both.
Thanks to all who responded.
Pierre
At 10:22 1/5/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > I'm still debating whether I will buy the 20mm f/2.8 or the 20-35, which
> > are roughly the same price.
>
>I sold my 20-35 a while back (to help finance my 28-70L) and have missed it
>ever since. The 20-35 is going to be my next purchase (unless I can find a
>similar L at a decent price.)
>
>Richard
>
>- - - - - - - - - -
>Richard Sessums
>Tampa, FL USA
>http://sessums.net/richard
>AOL Instant Messenger: RHSessums
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
