And should I also take into consideration the fact that I already own the
28-135 lens, so I only "need" 20-24?
And also that the tests on www.photozone.de seem to imply that the 20/2.8
is superior to the 20-35 lens?
Thanks
Pierre
At 16:55 3/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>You two guys are making life impossible for me!!!
>
>I had decided to go for the 20/2.8 and there you are convincing me that I
>should get the 20-35/3.5-4.5.
>
>I had decided for the 20/2.8 because of its closer focusing, at 9.5 inches
>instead of 13 inches for the 20-35 lens, which gives twice the
>magnification at 20mm, something like 0.13 instead of 0.07.
>
>I had figured that this would be useful if I want to make a picture of,
>let's say, a flower at 9.5 inches with a mountain in the background...
>extreme pictures... but will I want to focus often at 9.5 inches from the
>glass? Can I use a low power close-up lens on a 20-35 lens?
>
>And I will also use the lens for travel photos, like in NYC or Paris where
>the zoom lens would probably be more useful than the 20/2.8 lens. I guess
>it's hard to move forward or backwards from the top of the Empire State or
>the World Trade Center or the Eiffel Tower...
>
>Are there any advantages left for the 20/2.8?
>
>Pierre
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
