Excellent feedback, Bruce. Much appreciated! > Two things you haven't really told us are if the > 20-35 you have is the FA 20-35/4 that > is so good or some other one.
Yes, but I don't use the doggone thing. My MZ-S has essentially retired, so on the ist-D (for my use) it has become redundant and not as versatile as the 16-45mm. However, you bring up yet another option... > Secondly, how often are > you wishing to go wider than 16mm? That part I don't know. I just remember on my previous cross-country trip, running into at least 1/2 dozen scenarios where I needed to go wider and couldn't back up (usually waterfalls). Man, it was a miserable feeling. But if my need for the wider end of the 12-24mm is as limited as you suspect, then it may be better to just use the 20-35 on the MZ-S on those rare (?) occassions (I totally overlooked that option). That'll get me wider than the effective 24mm of the 16-45mm on the ist, without the added cost (just with the hassle of carrying another lens and camera, and developing film). hmm, something to consider. Also, > Last summer when I was preparing to go to Arches <snip> > I went down to the local camera shop and tried a bunch > of shots with the 12-24 > You can only get a few specific looks with that type of lens. > Either just a big vista that no longer looks wide when you see the > image, or something real close up made very big and the > background receding away rapidly. > Almost as cliche as a fisheye look. Very interesting comments. Problem is, I have no clue what something *that* wide looks like, so your experience with such things lends some understanding. I could go play with it in the store, but my morals won't allow me to do so if I know I'm not buying it from a brick-and-mortar shop. I played with dougs fisheye one time in Atlanta some time back, but that's about it for my experience wider than 24mm (effective). > So my recommendation is that if you have the FA 20-35/4, > you just get the 14/2.8 and work with both lenses. Hmm. Option #18 :o) or option #19: > just get a new 16-45 > (one of my favorite scenic lenses). > My hunch is that you will find as > I did that the 12-24 is really a much more > specialty lens than first thought. Thanks again.
