>> |
Anonymous
Okay, I think Photoshop's EXIF reports actual focal length, because the 17-55, even at 17mm only gives you 27.2mm so there's no way that was 35mm equivalent.
Now that that's solved.
I like the 28mm 2.8's price but really want the 24mm 2.8's field of view ;____;
It's $300, goddamnit.
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is "only" $420, covers that same range AND more. Too bad the 24mm 2.8 isn't any faster :/
|