I sometimes thought I would have been better with the 70-210 instead of the prime, but I hadn't got it then so that was academic! Certainly for street photography of the type you mentioned, the 28-105 is king, IMHO.
HTH
Oh, and welcome to the group - the best source of both general and esoteric knowledge to be found, on both photography and nearly everything else!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: www?
www = walking with what
When I started photography more seriously a couple of years ago I went to a
photo course. Our teacher gave us the advice to use prime lenses,
preferably normal primes, at least to start with. So for some time I only
had a 50mm-lens.
The last year I found a used FA 20/2.8, started to experiment with it and
became really fond of the perspective it gave. During a trip to a Greek
island this summer it became the favorite lens on the PZ1-p I walked around
with. It produced images I am very pleased with. Sometimes, however, it
made me unprepared for certain motives. I remember walking through a
fantastic barren, almost moonlike coastal landscape, when suddenly a man
appeared from the left carrying a huge sack filled with salt he had
collected. On the photo taken with the wide angle he (of course) appeared
as a tiny figure. Thus, using a 20mm as a walking around lens is not so
clever. Changing lenses would have taken too much time.
The obvious solution might after all be a zoom lense, like a 28-105. I am
thinking about buying one now. But then again, maybe using a longer prime
lens as walking around lens might be better. One mostly has more time to
change to a wide angle when the picturesque landscape or the like
"appears", than the other way around. At least that's what I think. So what
about let's say a FA 100/2.8 (too heavy?) or the FA 135/2.8 (too long?)?
I am still quite a novice so any advice is really appreciated. Thanks
Peter, Sweden
