On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, David Madsen wrote: > I actually don't need all that much wide angle. My current widest lens is a > 50mm, which if fine for film, but may be a bit tight for digital. I know I > need something wider when I get the dslr, I just don't know what will fit my > needs best. I have considered buying a used fixed 35 or 24 to use as a > "standard".
I have both of those lenses for my *ist D and think that they both work well. 35mm has a very similar field of view to 50mm on a 35mm camera, and 24mm has a very similar field of view to 35mm on a 35mm camera. I also have the 16-45/4. The 35/2 is much much smaller and two stops faster, so it is often the better lens to have. The 16-45/4 is much wider though, and sometimes that is necessary. On Saturday I was at a friend's birthday party. The first part of the party was a wine tasting at a local winery. The winery is in the basement of a house, and as you might expect it was very compact. At 16mm I could get a wide angle picture like this that somewhat showed the atmosphere of the party: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/peters-bday-31/reduced/IMGP2263.JPG (ISO 3200, f5.6, 1/60, 16mm) I couldn't have taken that shot with a 24mm or 35mm lens. On the other hand the composition isn't very good and with a tighter lens I might not have the back of someone's head in the left side of the frame. I was getting a little drunk at the time and mostly taking pictures at random. alex
