Boris wrote: >It would be odd to expect from a 100 mm macro lens to >be well suited >for landscape. IMHO, the only truly universal lens is >50 mm which you >might want to get. But then you have 24/2.8 that I >think is suite for >landscapes. I got mine just two days ago, so I >couldn't try it. But I >surely will.
Sticking to just 24mm, 50mm is a limitation for me. My experience says, using telephoto you can get closer views which you can not get using 24mm & 50mm. Ex: intersection of two mountains. These narrow views are as intesresting as shots which covers whole mountain range. I feel 100mm is not sufficient is limiting at times. I think 80-200mm is very good choice. I was thinking buying Tokina 80-200mm f2.8. I used 100mm macro for these http://www.asnowfall.com/Scan/Page19/USVMTP004019.html http://www.asnowfall.com/Scan/Page26/USADRP003624.html http://www.asnowfall.com/Scan/Page32/USNVTP003211.html Thanks Ramesh --- Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > RK> I will stick to my 100mm macro. I do not want > buy > RK> another 100mm lens just beacuse I do not want to > RK> accumulate more lens!!!. At the same time I am > not > RK> happy with 100mm macro's performance when used > for > RK> landscape shots, this seems to be related to > infinity > RK> focus. > > It would be odd to expect from a 100 mm macro lens > to be well suited > for landscape. IMHO, the only truly universal lens > is 50 mm which you > might want to get. But then you have 24/2.8 that I > think is suite for > landscapes. I got mine just two days ago, so I > couldn't try it. But I > surely will. > > Though 24,50,100 macro is going to weigh probably 3 > times the weight > of zoom lens, it is an excellent set. > > Boris > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
