pso
Senior Member
Thanks for the reply Eric, I appreciate the advice. Yeah I knew selling my 28-135 would come back to bite me one day hahaha
I guess I will have to make do w/ the 50 Cron on my Leica and my 24 prime on my Elan.
As for a 17-200 f/2.8, sounds like it could be a literal canon ; )
pakety
I guess I will have to make do w/ the 50 Cron on my Leica and my 24 prime on my Elan.
As for a 17-200 f/2.8, sounds like it could be a literal canon ; )
--Especially if you will not be changing lenses (though with a film
camera, do you need to worry so much about it?), I would recommend
the 24. I think you will find you wish you had more reach, but
more often I think you'd wish you had more FOV if you went with the
50.
I've decided I want a 17-200mm f/2.8L if anyone from Canon is
reading this. I'd be willing to pay up to about $2K for it too.
Shoot, I'd even trade my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for it if it was a decent
lens.
--Hi Eric, I am heading there pretty soon myself (in about a month).
In the Antelope Canyon, would you say a 50 prime is a good lens
choice? Besides a 100 prime and a 70-200, I only have a 24 wide
prime and a 50 normal prime and am trying not to change lenses
inside.
I shoot film so don't have to contend w/ the crop factor...your
opinion is appreciated.
BTW - great photos.
Pak
--
pakety
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.pbase.com/ericlamont (formal portfolio for now...)
'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of
scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell
pakety
