"Which wide prime?" was the question. The 20/2.8 is a very nice lens, in my
opinion. Never regretted buying it.
Pierre
At 16:18 11/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > F. Craig Callahan wrote:
> >
> > > Not exactly what I was saying. Indeed, if I were making a
> > > recommendation for a lens in
>
>
> F. Craig Callahan wrote:
>
> > Not exactly what I was saying. Indeed, if I were making a
> > recommendation for a lens in
> > this focal range, I would suggest that for most people the
> > 20-35/3.5~4.5 would be a
> > better choice than any of the wide-angle "L" zooms. Of
> > course, there are
F. Craig Callahan wrote:
> Not exactly what I was saying. Indeed, if I were making a
> recommendation for a lens in
> this focal range, I would suggest that for most people the
> 20-35/3.5~4.5 would be a
> better choice than any of the wide-angle "L" zooms. Of
> course, there are those who h
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:33:41 -0500, you wrote:
>The upshot is that any deficiencies in the optical performance of the
>> 17-35L or any lens that would be readily apparent in a transparency or
>> 11x14-inch enlargement may be indiscernible in an image printed on a page of
>> National Geographic or
"F. Craig Callahan" wrote:
> Gary Russell wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
> > >The 17-35mm f/2.8L did not possess the sort of photodo rating that I
> > >expected it to.
> >
> > I guess the bottom line for me is that if the images the 17-35 L
> > produces are p
Gary Russell wrote:
> -Original Message-
>
> >The 17-35mm f/2.8L did not possess the sort of photodo rating that I
> >expected it to.
>
> I guess the bottom line for me is that if the images the 17-35 L
> produces are published in National G with some
> amount
-Original Message-
From: Lawrance Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I too had to get a 2nd lens to cover the wide angle after my 70-200mm
f/2.8L
>and I really really wanted to get something that had just as good quality.
>The 17-35mm f/2.8L did not possess the sort of photodo rating that I
>expecte
oney down for one of these
puppies. Then the hole in my range will be filled.
Regards,
Lawrance
Original Message Follows
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 09:59:50 -0800
From: Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: EOS which wide prime?
Hey All,
I had a similar problem while trying to co
Hi,
I once had a 28-105 and a 24, and I sold the 24 because of non use.
I now have a 28-135 and a 20, and I use both.
Pierre
At 22:22 11/7/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>If my 'normal' lens is a 28-70 f/2.8, which wide angle prime would best fill
>out the wide end, the 24mm f/2.8 or the 20mm f/2.8? I
> Subject: Re: EOS which wide prime?
>
>
> > I bought a really nice, used 20-35mm/f2.8L zoom and have been
> VERY happy with
> > it.
>
> I have that one too... Trying to sell mine (Norway only, sorry)
> along with all my other EOS gear. I can say that it'
10 matches
Mail list logo
