Craig,
I can understand the preference for Primes, and I did actually consider
buying a Prime, especially as they are smaller than Wide-Angle zooms. But
the glowing reviews of the Tamron 20-40 did motivate me to consider it.
I'll keep the points about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of 17mm in mind.
I wouldn't mind additional flexibility in the ways that you mention, but I
guess it's not that often that I do try and make something stand out. And I
get the impression that 17mm is not really "there" anyway for that purpose,
or at least it didn't seem so when I tried the 17-35. I'll see what the
prices for the 20 and the 24 are like, though.
BTW, I fully intend to take my 75-300 on the trip to get some good close-ups
if possible. :) And I will put my three (!!) good pictures from the Rugby
Sevens up soon for anyone who is interested in seeing what the result is of
a semi-serious amateur with an IX7, a 75-300 (effective max 480mm) and
ISO800 film. It was overcast, and I ran out of ISO800 eventually, so not all
of the photos were good.
Anyway, thanks for the advice!
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
***********************************************************
