Since you have the FA 20-35, you could get the 14/2.8 and take only one body. If you need wider than the 20, use the 14. Then later, if you get the 16-45 back from Colorado, you can decide to keep them all or sell something. Seems like the best use of a great lens (20-35) rather than just letting it sit there and you are still covered on the real wide end with the 14mm.
I actually have the bigger dilemma because my 16-45 is fine. So if I want wider I choose the DA 14/2.8, the DA 12-24/4 or the DA 10-17 fisheye. Hmmm... -- Bruce Tuesday, April 11, 2006, 12:49:52 PM, you wrote: JR> Excellent feedback, Bruce. Much appreciated! >> Two things you haven't really told us are if the >> 20-35 you have is the FA 20-35/4 that >> is so good or some other one. JR> Yes, but I don't use the doggone thing. My MZ-S has essentially retired, JR> so on the ist-D (for my use) it has become redundant and not as versatile JR> as the 16-45mm. However, you bring up yet another option... >> Secondly, how often are >> you wishing to go wider than 16mm? JR> That part I don't know. I just remember on my previous cross-country trip, JR> running into at least 1/2 dozen scenarios where I needed to go wider and JR> couldn't back up (usually waterfalls). Man, it was a miserable feeling. JR> But if my need for the wider end of the 12-24mm is as limited as you JR> suspect, then it may be better to just use the 20-35 on the MZ-S on those JR> rare (?) occassions (I totally overlooked that option). That'll get me JR> wider than the effective 24mm of the 16-45mm on the ist, without the added JR> cost (just with the hassle of carrying another lens and camera, and JR> developing film). hmm, something to consider. JR> Also, >> Last summer when I was preparing to go to Arches <snip> >> I went down to the local camera shop and tried a bunch >> of shots with the 12-24 >> You can only get a few specific looks with that type of lens. >> Either just a big vista that no longer looks wide when you see the >> image, or something real close up made very big and the >> background receding away rapidly. >> Almost as cliche as a fisheye look. JR> Very interesting comments. Problem is, I have no clue what something JR> *that* wide looks like, so your experience with such things lends some JR> understanding. I could go play with it in the store, but my morals won't JR> allow me to do so if I know I'm not buying it from a brick-and-mortar JR> shop. I played with dougs fisheye one time in Atlanta some time back, but JR> that's about it for my experience wider than 24mm (effective). >> So my recommendation is that if you have the FA 20-35/4, >> you just get the 14/2.8 and work with both lenses. JR> Hmm. Option #18 :o) JR> or option #19: >> just get a new 16-45 >> (one of my favorite scenic lenses). >> My hunch is that you will find as >> I did that the 12-24 is really a much more >> specialty lens than first thought. JR> Thanks again.
