On Aug 16, 2005, at 3:00 PM, Jarek Dabrowski wrote:
Currently I have 20-35, and (if I buy DS) - I will not be able to
afford 16-45. And, I will not sell 20-35, because I am not
quitting film (slides !!) - this lens is excellent on 24x36.
It's just as excellent on 16x24, don't worry about that.
On the other hand - I prefer shorter lenses (well, that's why I got
20-35 :>) - so ~30mm (equiv.) may not be enough. Good for start,
but probably I'll need something wider. DA 14mm is out of my reach,
so probably I'll start looking for Tokina AT-X, or Tamron SP 17/3.5.
I have no experience with the Tokina or Tamron lenses.
But if what you want is the field of view of an approximately 20mm
focal length that you get with the 20-35 and 24x36 format, even a
16-17mm lens is going to feel constraining. The DA14 is a bargain
considering its speed and quality coupled with the field of view ...
in the Canon line, the EF 14mm 2.8L is nearly $1800 street price in
the US.
That said, you might consider the Zenitar-K 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye. This
is a remarkably well made, good performing lens that sells in the
$125 price bracket. No AF and it's not an "A" lens either so you can
only use Manual exposure with the DS/D cameras, but it's well worth
it. On the 16x24 format, it presents a very wide, curvilinear field
of view that can be corrected back to a rectilinear rendering with
PTLens with excellent results. The 16x24mm format helps hide some of
the curvilinear distortion so it can even be used without rectilinear
correction in certain circumstances.
My needs generally run in the 24-28mm "wide" category, but when I
want ultrawide the Zenitar and DA14 are what I need. Here's a Zenitar
pic, taken from about 8-10 inches away:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/25p.htm
Godfrey
