Thanks Chip, I appreciate your long comments and opinions
on this beaten subject.
>What kind of subjects do you like to shoot with short lenses?
Well, all kinds of them, that's my dilemma... And there is no
perfect lens for everything. But in practice it is mostly nature or
reportage/news style (?) photographing (including family shots).
Also vacation trips.
So the lens should be light, have fast aperture, good at full open
apertures and be flexible...
Somehow I think the combination 24/2.8 and 17-35/2.8 would suit
best for me.
>primes have much lower distortion levels and are sharper
Actually distortion (because of the bad lens quality) has never been
a problem for me. I usually don't search signs of it when I see
a photo, I quess I concentrate on the subject. I rarely shoot
"architecture".
>The EF 17-35 2.8L is really a fantastic lens, relatively fast with a
.....snip...
>images), a large amount of bulk, high weight and relatively high cost.
Compared to 20/2.8 I don't find this lens very heavy.
I could get a second hand version for 750-1000 USD (not necessarily
in very good condition though) which I find reasonable.
>in terms of potential subject impact because the EF 17-35 2.8L cannot
> >focus as close as the primes.
Yes, that is not so good point in this zoom, I agree.
>Think about this, for less than the cost of an EF 17-35 2.8L you can own an
>EF 20 2.8USM and an EF 20-35 3.5/4.5USM. Most of the focal range of the EF
>17-35 2.8L with the ultra close focusing distance and very low distortion
>of
>the EF 20 2.8USM prime combined with less weight and volume at a lower
>price!
Good option but I might use my 24/2.8 instead of the 20/2.8.
A 20mm lens could be too wide for general use. 20/2.8 is also quite
heavy and 24/2.8 might be optically better (but it doesn't have
USM & FTM).
20-35USM and 20/2.8 together are almost as heavy and bulky as
17-35/2.8 and 24/2.8 together. 20-35USM alone is attractively
lightweight.
I think owning all 20/2.8, 24/2.8 and 20-35USM would be too much
(at least to carry along).
>I've
>used the EF 14 2.8L quite a bit and as a consequence want one really,
>really, badly! Ahh but for the cost issue...
I can feel your pain. I have also once used that lens. With it you
easily hit the subject with the front lens when you look through
the viewfinder. Great quality and DOF!
>Regards,
>Chip Louie
b.r. Vesa
_________________________________________________________________________
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
***********************************************************
