20mm f/2.8 sweet but no cigar

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Candidcameraman, May 27, 2007.

  1. I really like the lens but ... I am still going to go for the 17-55 f/2.8 cause it lacks one thing... Zooming capabilities.

    I tried it today and really liked the results however I can't justify the price when a little (a lot) more would get me something with more range.

    I really like it but unless I'd get it as a gift, close but no cigar. Primes at the wide end you have the 10.5 which is worth it and then I jump to the 24mm, in my case. But this said I'd get a 17-55/2.8 which covers all these but the 35mm f2 and the 50/1.4 ... I know I am nuts - primes are better, that's what I keep hearing but man - I don't want a bag full of lenses - just a few select ones. :smile:

    P.S.: But then again I just clicked on "Preview Post" and looked at those two pictures and WOW, what a great result from such a little solid prime... Who knows I might just change my mind, I am so fickle!:rolleyes:

    Dimanche2.gif

    View attachment 97938
     
  2. jaleel

    jaleel

    90
    Apr 3, 2007
    Toronto, Canada
    the 17-55 is great!
    you won't regret it Dude =)
     
  3. fks

    fks

    Apr 30, 2005
    sf bay area
    hi dude-

    all prime lenses have built-in zooms, they're know as feet... :wink:

    i sold my 20mm f/2.8, and i miss it when i want a light kit and don't feel like carrying the 17-35mm AF-S. an added bonus was that my 20mm is more flare resistant than my 17-35mm.

    ricky
     
  4. Donzo98

    Donzo98

    Nov 10, 2005
    Merrick, NY
    You are not nuts... I agree completely!! The again... maybe we are both nuts :biggrin: I love zooms... the pro zooms are awesome... and the 18-200 ain't too bad either.

    18-200 and D200

    [​IMG]
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.