Yang-Wahn Hew wrote:
> 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.
It would seem to me that the obvious candidates would be the 24/2.8 and/or 35/2.
> 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?
Sharpness isn't necessarily the main concern with wide-angle zooms�distortion
can be a much bigger problem. You will typically get significantly less
distortion with a fixed-focal-length wide-angle lens (and better overall
performance at any given price point).
> 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.
Call me perverse, but I fail to see the utility of a 17mm lens for landscapes;
it seems they're far more useful for some foreground subject you want to place
in its larger environment. Remember than any landscape features more than a few
feet away will be tiny in your photos. IMO, the best landscape lenses are
telephotos in the 135�300mm range. Remember that the most important elements in
your photos are often those that are *excluded* from the frame. It is something
of a tragedy that so many folks shooting landscapes fixate on wide-angle views
and fail to even consider pulling out the telephoto.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
