>> If you are comparing focal lengths, below is what I feel is a >> more equitable list. Do you agree? >> TS-E 24L <==> TS-E 45 >> EF 24 f/2.8 <==> (EF 50 f/1.8)
> Jeff Conrad wrote: > This seems a bit of a stretch ... wouldn't 35 mm be a better fit? > In the case of the TS-E 24, this would give the TS-E 35 that many > full-frame users have wished that Canon had carried over from the > FD line. All of the TS-Es work surprisingly well with the 1.4x > (and with the TS-E 90, even the 2x) extender. Using these lenses > directly with the 1.6 crop factor, the angle of view is quite > similar to the full-frame AoV using an extender. Optical > performance probably is slightly better without the extender. Hi Jeff, Which EOS DSLR frame factor are you writing about? 1x, 1.3x or 1.6x? On my EOS 20D 24mm and 35mm straddle the "normal" field of view, corresponding to a 40mm and a 56mm focal length on a 24x36mm frame. "Normal" lenses are just a matter of taste. If you were used to the longer 50 to 55m range, then 35mm would be a good choice. If you like the 40 to 45mm "pancake" range, then 24mm is the natural choice. See: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/lenses.html I put my TS-E 24L on the EOS 20D. I think I'm in love. Cheers Julian Loke * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
