Pierre Bellavance wrote:
>
> 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
>
I always like a little bit of overlap with my zooms, i.e. 20-35, 28-135,
100-400. That way, if I need a little more reach, I don't have to
change lenses as often. Actually, what my bag will look like by the end
of next month will be: 15mm fisheye, 17-35 Sigma, 28-135 IS and 100-300
USM or 100-400 IS.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
