Hi all,
I bit the bullet and picked up an EOS30 today, as I am going to the Three
Gorges of China later this month. They are going to be flooded forever later
this year, and I want to make sure that my pics are extra-sharp.
In any case, I now need a good wide-angle lens to go with the camera. At the
moment, I have the 28-105, the 75-300 IS, and the 22-55 that I got with the
IX7.
I could save money by staying with the 22-55. However, would I negate that
advantage, assuming it is not as sharp as everyone claims? Or would it be a
better idea to go for either the Sigma 17-35 or Tamron 20-40? I have found
both in local stores, and price is not an issue (for once!). I did read the
threads a few months ago about the Tamron 20-40 being the best lens in that
range, but I am attracted by the Sigma's extra 17mm. And I have been to
CameraReviews, and find that the lenses are similarly rated, although the
Tamron is rated higher (although it doesn't have the extra 3mm). I guess my
questions are:
1. Would I be sacrificing any potential shots by buying a lens that stops at
20mm instead? I intend to use it mainly for landscapes, with only the
occasional, holiday architecture shot.
2. Is the Tamron really THAT much better than the Sigma? Because I don't see
the point of buying a 20-40 if I already have a 22-55 (even if the 20-40 is
supposed to be much better).
Sorry about this long message. Thanks for any advice anyone can give me.
Y-W
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
