I had the opportunity to use my sis-in-law's 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 wide angle lens, and fell in love. It is almost fish-eye style and creates a beautiful span in the photos. It would be perfect for sunsets and landscapes - both of which I love to shoot. Only problem; it's not very versatile. This will be the last lens I buy for a while, maybe I should get something that "covers more bases"?
The other lens I'm considering is a 17-55mm f/2.8. It has a larger aperture and could also take a larger variety of shots due to the adjustable focal length, though it doesn't get quite as wide-angle as the 10-22mm and I really like that effect. It is also more expensive.
What it comes down to is A) with only having three lenses will I feel limited by having a variety of shooting ranges, but nothing in between (10-22mm, 50mm, 100mm)? Or B) if I get the 17-55mm will I miss that extra little bit of wide angle? I could also borrow the other from sis-in-law if needed.
Who am I kidding - I'm sure I'll end up with both eventually. But it's going to be a while. So which one will hold me over?
Wide angle?
Versatility?
Wide angle?
Versatility?
.......
No comments:
Post a Comment