Wayne, My best recommendation would be to figure out what your needs are, which kind of wide angle photography you'd like to do, and go from there. A new lens will not make you a better photographer. Only one with an even thinner wallet...
Look at your current photography. How much of it is done at 24mm? How would the composition change if you went wider? Would it be better or just more cluttered? How much wider would you need to go? A 21mm is pretty damn wide for most people (90 degree field of view). How about renting a lens for a week and try it out? If you don't have a place locally that offer lens rentals, there are several on-line places. It's usually fairly inexpensive. The TS lens gives you tilt/shift or swing/rise-fall. In other words perspective control. If this is what you need, then buy the TS lens... If not, then don't buy it. The 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4 are both excellent wide angle zooms. Personally, I don't really see any reason to go with the /2.8 unless you really need the big aperture for viewfinder brightness or creative control. I'm sure the 14mm is a great lens, but it's also very much a special purpose lens. My guess is that it probably won't see a whole bunch of use, but will be really cool for those special occasions where wide angle really works (such as a lot of places in the Southwestern US apparently). I got caught in the "must have a really wide angle lens" game with my 35mm (and 645) gear. I used to have a 21mm for my 35mm gear. I just could not make that lens work for me. Either I just don't see the wide angle compositions or I can't find a good foreground object. Wide angle composition seems to be a lot about getting really close to the foreground and letting the background do what it wants to. This is a real problem if there's any kind of recognizable object (buildings, trees, etc) in the background as the extreme angle of view distorts the heck out of everything. This is a problem in the Pacific Northwest where we have a fair share of evergreens. If you still want to spend money without trying out lenses first, I suggest getting a 17-40/4. That way you're not out that much should the wide angle thing not be your thing. It's an excellent lens. Tom On 4/14/06, W S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I already have the 24-105/4 lens I use with the 5D. I was > wondering if it would be better to add a wide angle prime, > like the 14mm or the 16-35mm zoom? or even the 24 TS? > weight wise they are similar. Any recommendations for > a wide angle lens? * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
