----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: EOS wides
OK, I'll break the mold and post ON Thanksgiving. A happy one to
all, by the way.
I'm looking at my wide angle deficit, and feel frustrated by the
huge gap between the sub-$300 EF24/2.8 and the over-$1K 24/1.4L. I
wish there was a EF 24/2.0 at around $600 or so. Seems like there
should be. Is there a really wonderful 20 or 24 prime in the 3rd
party range I should know about? Is the 24/2.8 better than it
sounds?
-------------------------
Hi Ken,
I've had the EF 24 f2.8 for about two years, and I like it. Haven't
used it too often at full aperture, but at f5.6 it delivers. I've
used it on my EOS10D and EOS5D. Must say I haven't used it that
much but I carry it quite a bit. Having a fully internal focus
mechanism it's quite robust - something which I can't claim for the
35 f2 or 50 f1.4, both of which have needed repairs to their focus
mechanisms! (And I always thought I was gentle with my gear!)
I also have the EF 20 f2.8, bought for my 10D and used heavily
before I got the 5D a year ago. That's quite a bit bigger than the
24, and now tends to get left at home.
Malcolm
Milton Keynes, UK
*
I have the 24/1.4, 24TSE, 24-105 and Sigma 12-24. I had the 16-35 and
used the 24-70 and 24/2.8. Also many lenses between 20 and 28 in
Canon, Nikon, Leica and others.
The Canon 24/2.8 is OK, but not great. The 24/1.4 also, and becomes
quite good at f/5.6. The TSE is also useable but not great. The 16-35
is not very good at all, the 24-70 is passable and 24-105 is quite
good at 24 except for vignetting, and the 12-24 Sigma (good copy) is
quite good but slow.
Canon doesn't have any lens wider than 35 which is really top notch.
Nikon does way better in this area, and Leica, Cosina, Zeiss, Olympus
etc do way better as well, all the way to outstanding.
I don't know if the Sigma 20 and 24 are any better in comparison, and
there really isn't much else that is fully functional in this range.
So I use the 24-105 and shoot RAW. The 12-24 Sigma takes care of the
shorter stuff, and is way better than the 16-35 I had, which
unfortunately was quite representative of that model.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
