> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:08:53 -0400
> From: "F. Craig Callahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: EOS 22-55 USM vs. Sigma 17-35 vs. Tamron 20-40
>
> > 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.
Hi.
Well,I couldn't disagree more! Most of the best landscape work is made with
wide-angle,for the unique perspective they'll give away. Check out folks
like Gallen Rowell,Franz Lanting and will see what I mean! Sure teles can be
used as a complement,but for showing the details...
Regards,
Andr�
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
