Would anyone who has both of these care to comment on whether the 21 limited
is better than the 16-45 at 21?
I have the 16-45 and am wondering if the 21 would be better for photographing
large groups of people. ( i.e. the mild distortion probably isn't an issue,
but resolution is important )
On Jan 19, 2007, at 12:53 AM, Brian Dunn wrote:
Would anyone who has both of these care to comment on whether the
21 limited
is better than the 16-45 at 21?
I have the 16-45 and am wondering if the 21 would be better for
photographing
large groups of people. ( i.e. the mild
Look into the 28mm shift lens (which I own), if you are photographing
buildings etc...Jay
At 09:30 AM 1/19/07, you wrote:
On Jan 19, 2007, at 12:53 AM, Brian Dunn wrote:
Would anyone who has both of these care to comment on whether the
21 limited
is better than the 16-45 at 21?
I
As one who shoots weddings and portraits regularly, I have to caution
on too wide a shooting. Although the prime is probably better
corrected for linear distortion, you have to be cautious about
shooting too close with too wide a lens. The reason is that a
rectilinear lens distorts in a
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Bruce Dayton wrote:
As one who shoots weddings and portraits regularly, I have to caution
on too wide a shooting. Although the prime is probably better
corrected for linear distortion, you have to be cautious about
shooting too close with too wide a lens. The reason is
I can offer a roundabout comparison:
I have tested the FA 20 F2.8 against the DA 16-45 set to 20 mm. The test
was for sharpness, with the subject a mud-brick wall. The FA 20
definitely wins.
I have tested the FA 20 agains the DA 21. Same test for sharpness. They
are very, very close. I call
On Jan 19, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Bruce Dayton wrote:
As one who shoots weddings and portraits regularly, I have to caution
on too wide a shooting. Although the prime is probably better
corrected for linear distortion, you have to be cautious
On 20/01/07, Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can offer a roundabout comparison:
I have tested the FA 20 F2.8 against the DA 16-45 set to 20 mm. The test
was for sharpness, with the subject a mud-brick wall. The FA 20
definitely wins.
I have tested the FA 20 agains the DA 21. Same
8 matches
Mail list logo
