Ken Durling wrote:
I completely agree, and take anything I read there with a grain of
salt. Sort of like talking to people at a pub. The only thing that
I figure offsets the self-justification, is that people also seem to
like to show off their superior knowledge by trashing whatever they
don't like! It's just a tendency indicator, and probably an amateur
one at that. However, if a sufficiently large number of people either
rave or rant, it will at least get me to look a little closer. That's
why it's always essential to look at the left column on that site, and
see how many have submitted critiques - which by the way, is just a
multiple-choice online form.
For example, this whole thread has got me seriously considering the
20-40! I'm just not sure I don't want that extra 3mm of a 17-XX zoom.
I was just in Yosemite shooting with a 28-90mm, and boy I wanted a LOT
more than that 28mm offered for certain scenes! That's a situation
where you just can't get the perspective you want by adjusting your
position! Yeah, you could walk backwards for a few miles, but that
gets old, and you'd probably run into a canyon wall anyway!
________________________________________________________________________
Agreed. I find the 20mm (which is actually 21mm) to be ideal for
scenics (such as shots at Yosemite) and the 40m ideal for people
photography. I used the 20-40mm recently at Yosemite to take a shot
of Half Dome. Be happy to send you a jpg of it if you are interested.
IMHO, when you get much wider than 20mm there is way too much barrel
distortion for my tastes, hence one of the reason I bought the Tamron.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
