Fisheye is fine, but for the work I do, The wide angle zoom would be better.....
--- "Paris, Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michele, > > You stand a better chance of doing what you want > with a f/2.8 constant > aperture lens than you do with an f/4 but f/2.8 > lenses at those focal > lengths are pretty expensive. Not that the FA 20-35 > f/4 is exactly cheap, > either. If cost is a major consideration, you could > go with a Zenitar 16mm > f/2.8 and save a lot of money. Don't like fisheyes? > Correct the > perspective with PhotoShop, assuming that you have a > scanner and a computer > available. > > Len > --- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MPozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: FA 20 - 35 and 17-35 DOF > > > Sorry to interject but as someone's already asked > about this lens (which I am really interested in) I > am > also curious about the depth of field for > FA 20 - 35 in particular, but also the 17-35. > > Not having any lenses that go below 24mm, and > wanting > to have tpossibility to blur background beyond 2-3 > meters behind tghe subject which is close, I was > wondring how these 2 lenses fared. > > Michele > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. > To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. > Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at > http://pug.komkon.org . Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
