On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 09:08:17AM +0900, James B.Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> OK, I've always said here that there are times a fast lens is needed. > The point I'm trying to make is - for how many photographers is it > really that important? And my thinking is very few and not very often. I must agree with that. Sometimes they're indispensable, but much less often than they used to be. > Besides, if you really just want to get an image, you'd just use > flash. Much better than the image you'd get handholding at that low a > light level. Yes, if your target is close enough. Sometimes it isn't. And sometimes you just need all the light your lens can gather. For example, I've been occasionally shooting Northern Lights. Flash doesn't help any, and sometimes they move so fast increasing exposure time (yes, I use a tripod) isn't any good either. Suggestions for a good lens for that? Now I have the EF 28/1.8, which is OK but not really wide enough with the 1.6x crop (indeed even without it wider would be better). The 24/1.4L would be better, but it's rather expensive and still not really wide enough (with film or a full-frame digital it would be ideal, though...). There are a number of f/2.8 wideangles but that's too slow. Sigma 20/1.8 seems like the only choice left, or have I missed something? -- Tapani Tarvainen * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
