Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- From: "Ståle Sannerud" <staale.sannerud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:17:40 +0200
The other alternative is the EF 17-40L. It's a bit cheaper, but all
the other issues still apply. No Image stabilization,
Really, how important is the IS feature in a wide angle zoom?
I have no use for it at all. I know some people rave about it, and there
are uses for it, but it's not essential. I don't mind IS in a telephoto
for handholding but I could care less about it in a short lense.
Oh, for indoors photo, in a museum for example, when you didn't bring/cannot
use a tripod. You need wide angle due to lack of space, and I have found
that two-three stops' worth of IS would have helped a LOT on a 2.8 lens in
those circumstances. Something like a 24mm f/1.4 or 20 f/1.8 prime would
have been bright enough and perhaps wide enough, but are inflexible and
leave you without any DOF to speak of at all. So yeah, I'd like an IS
wide-angle zoom for that use.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- From: Mark²
- Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- References:
- Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- From: mexican_equivalent
- Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- From: mexican_equivalent
- Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- Prev by Date: Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- Next by Date: Re: 6-8 meg camera owners, will you go 10 megs?
- Previous by thread: Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- Next by thread: Re: Avoiding EF-S Lenses... Smart or Dumb?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
