Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 28's around? Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced amateur? Thanks for your input. Peter, Sweden
>Some folks do not even consider a 28mm to be truely wide angle. I have always >considered it to be a comprimise between a 24 and 35. Can't aford two lenses? >Buy the 28. I feel the same way, though not as intensely, about the 100/105mm >and the 85mm and 135mm. > >graywolf >http://www.graywolfphoto.com >"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" >----------------------------------- > > > > >Peter Smekal wrote: >> Today my daughter came up with a last minute Christmas wish. She has a MZ5n >> and M50/1.4 lens and has taken some pretty nice pictures with that. Now she >> "kind of would like to have a wide angle lens". So, what's daddy going to >> do .. shops are closing for the holidays in two hours or so .. well, I >> might give her one of my beloved short primes, either the K24/2.8, which is >> a little obsolete since I bought Joe's FA24/2, or the M28/2.8. Which one >> would you consider more "educational", i.e. good for learning wide angle >> photography. I almost would say the M28, because it's not so extreme, but >> maybe I only think so because I like that K24 so much ,-) >> Thanks and have nice holidays all of you! >> Peter, Sweden >> >> >> >> > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004
