On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:39:38 -0400, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>So what you're saying is that there is no place for an ultrawide in the >full frame arena........ > >I beg to differ with you. Both the 16-35 and the 17-40 are viable >lenses even with full frame. When I got my 20D I got the 17-40 with >it. I use it both on the 20D and my -3 when I feed the need to regress >and shoot film...... > >I don't think I am alone in my thinking that super wides are good and >useful in the 1.6 digital and the full frame world. No, you're not alone. When I had my 20-35 on my film EOS, it was nice and wide, but many times I'd have wished it was wider! I usually use a super wide for shots in a house, small room, groups of people, etc. I could really use one now, but I'm holding off on buying a super wide for my 10d, just can't afford it right now, too many other projects going on. I'd like to get a small super wide though. Zooms are great, love them, but since I'll be carrying it as an extra lens, I'd like something small and light. Something like the EF15 would suit me fine. Unfortunately, they are priced quite high now due to demand. And I'd like to stay with a Canon lens. I might try out something from Sigma though, when the time comes. I just don't want another heavy zoom to carry around, then I wouldn't carry it all the time and wouldn't get so much use out of it. -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography: http://naturephoto.easternbeaver.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
