Pierre Bellavance 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.
Hi Pierre,
IMO, unless you have a specific need for a fixed 20mm lens, it isn't very practical
unless it's part of a larger collection of lenses: 20 - 24 - 35 - 85 for example.
As a stand-alone lens, it seems to me to be just too limited, unless there's some
particular use for which you really need it. Is that 3.5-inch difference in
close-focus distance really going to make a difference? They're both 20mm, you're
going to get the same distortions, and in neither case is the mountain in the
background going to be sharp.
> but will I want to focus often at 9.5 inches from the
> glass?
That is the question! Just fooling around with my 20-35, it seems to me that it's
easy to tweak the magnification by zooming out a little--to 22mm or 25mm, for
example. The amount of perspective distortion changes some, but it doesn't seem
like that much to me--but perhaps I'm just not understanding what you want to
accomplish. However, it occurs to me when you say that you want both the flower and
the mountain in focus, that what you really want is a T/S lens, either the 24L or
the 90. Check out these photos by George Lepp using T/S lenses, starting with the
one labeled "page 11":
http://www.leppphoto.com/TheNaturalImage/NI15-3Color/NI15-3.html
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
