Julian Loke wrote: > Which EOS DSLR frame factor are you writing about? 1x, 1.3x or 1.6x?
I think I mentioned 1x and 1.6x ... > "Normal" lenses are just a matter of taste. No disagreement ... I simply questioned the focal length equivalences, given that 24 x 1.6 = 38.4. > I put my TS-E 24L on the EOS 20D. I think I'm in love. It's a nice lens. In some cases, the angle of view is a bit wide for architecture on a 24 x 36 format, especially with traditional architecture. With the 1.6 factor, you'll get an arguably more natural perspective. In some cases, the perspective with a 1.3 factor also would seem ideal. You just never can have enough TS lenses in the 20 mm - 40 mm range ... admittedly, paying for them might be another matter. This lens on a 20D also should be good for near/far compositions if you do such things; on a 24 x 36 frame, the effect can be a bit extreme for my tastes (though George Lepp makes a good case to the contrary). At the equivalent focal length of 38 mm, the tilt probably will become a useful feature. On a 24 x 36 format, I hardly ever use tilt on the TS-E 24, but use it all the time on the TS-E 45. Near-"normal" focal length lenses usually don't come to mind when envisioning near/far composition, but I think much of this is because of the difficulty of getting adequate DoF. This all changes with the tilt feature; look at some of John Shaw's wildflower images with the TS-E 45 for examples. Enjoy. Jeff Conrad * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
