Hi , With due respect, I would not consider a 50 mm. lens for portraiture. This 80 mm. equivalency is only true for reduced field of view, otherwise a 50 mm. lens is a 50 mm. lens. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elgenper > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:27 AM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > Subject: Re: Lens for Canon D-10 > > When I owned and used a D60, my "standard" lens was the Canon > 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS. Quite decent optically, very, very > flexible (lacking a bit at the wide end, of course). A > little bulky and heavy, but cheap for a good Canon lens. And > that image stabilisation..... > worth its weight in gold.... > > I don´t know much about the new Canon 17-85 IS optimized for > digital sensors, but it should be somewhat equal to the > 28-135 with much better W/A coverage. Were I to buy a Canon > DSLR today, I´d have a look at that lens first. > > And do buy a 50 (1.8 or 1.4) at the same time! Great for low > light and portraiture (equivalent to 80 mm on full frame 35 mm). > > > Per Öfverbeck > http://foto.ofverbeck.se > > > 2005-05-21 kl. 23.10 skrev rebphoto: > > > Hi Gang................. > > > > In the next week or so I am going to buy a Canon D 10. > > > > The lens on my Olympus E-10 was the equivalent of a > 35-140mm on a 35mm > > camera. > > > > That worked great for me. > > > > I have been looking a bunch of lenses in that range. > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.14 - Release Date: > 20.05.2005 > >
