----- Original Message -----
From: Pierre Bellavance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: EOS 20/2.8 vs 20-35/3.5-4.5
> Yes, it is a factor, but I guess it's nice to be able to go from 20 to 35
> with one lens...
>
> Otherwise, will I miss the gap between 20 and 28mm?
>
> Probably not, since I once had a 24mm that I sold because it was too close
> to my 28-105 lens, and I didn't use it much.
>
> Back to the 20/2.8 lens...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Pierre
Ok you have the 28-135 lens, but think of this: you won't have to change
the lens to get up to 35mm. Changing lenses in the field is something that I
really don't like to do. It's the reason they're dropped, dirtied, and worn.
That's what I love about zooms almost as much as the ability to fram as I
want. The need NOT to have to change lenses so often. I often take my 20-35
to a party and rarely feel the need to change it. Sometimes I don't even
take another lens with me.
For what it's worth, I often find myself shooting between 20 and 28mm.
Indoors, 28mm as you likely know seems never to be quite wide enough,
especially in small rooms. 20mm is sometimes a bit too wide... therefore a
choice is very nice in these situations.
While I was shopping for my wide angle lens, I was still going back and
forth in my mind which one I wanted - the zoom, or the prime. After visiting
a couple stores for prices, I was bicycling to another store and tossing
over in my mind using the lens. Suddenly it hit me - a prime wide angle
would not be usefull very much and likely sit in my bag unused most of the
time. I turned around and wheeled back to the first store and promptly
bought the 20-35 lens. I never regretted it. You said it yourself - you had
a 24mm lens and hardly used it.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
