On 17/8/06, Henning Wulff, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have both of these lenses. The 24 is used mostly on crop cameras, >the 35 on FF. Optical quality of the 35 is definitely better than >that of the 24, but both can take pictures that other lenses can't. >That's why you use them. If you have a 1DII type camera, then the >choice of which one comes down mostly whether you want something >closer to 50mm FF equiv, or 30. > >My own preference would be to go with the 24, as that angle of view >is more appealing to me, but it's for you to decide. > >If I'm looking for a fast wide (which would naturally be used in low >light situations, handling, flare resistance and things of that >nature are more important to me than resolution. What I'm saying is >that in practical terms, I use both lenses as I need the angles of >view and speed, and don't worry about the resolution which is >generally masked by user errors at low light levels anyway. :-) > >If I need optimal image quality I can stop down, set the ISO lower >and use a tripod under low light conditions. > >Both lenses are of similar charactre overall, with nice OOF areas. >Handling and size are fairly similar, and they are two of my >favourite lenses. Now, could I have IS with that??? :-)
Thanks Henning, music to my ears. Appreciate the comments. Difficult question: from your (obviously) impressive arsenal of glass - which one is your favourite? Quick - first answer that springs to mind, that's the one - which is it? -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
