Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vincent" data-source="post: 570615" data-attributes="member: 15675">I did buy the 11-16 DXI when I started, I tried 50mm first, 11-16 solved some things I could not do with 50mm.Many recommend it and I do understand why, even if ultra wide angle is speciality lens, it is probably underused by most. I`m trying to go full FX on lenses, but this one is the exception the 11-16 is a fantastic 16mm f2.8 FX lens btw.Anti-GAS militant, do not spend your money. You should know very well how you will use this to justify .Important topics I find in ultra wide: - Yes it is sharp- It can take 77mm filters, on ultrawide something you will want to use at one stage- Close focus distance to show small subjects in their context- Zone focussing is different on most lenses, but you would use itLess important: f2.8 on short focus distance it has been less limiting then on longer lenses</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vincent, post: 570615, member: 15675"] I did buy the 11-16 DXI when I started, I tried 50mm first, 11-16 solved some things I could not do with 50mm. Many recommend it and I do understand why, even if ultra wide angle is speciality lens, it is probably underused by most. I`m trying to go full FX on lenses, but this one is the exception the 11-16 is a fantastic 16mm f2.8 FX lens btw. Anti-GAS militant, do not spend your money. You should know very well how you will use this to justify . Important topics I find in ultra wide: - Yes it is sharp - It can take 77mm filters, on ultrawide something you will want to use at one stage - Close focus distance to show small subjects in their context - Zone focussing is different on most lenses, but you would use it Less important: f2.8 on short focus distance it has been less limiting then on longer lenses [/QUOTE]

Verification