as above...with the EOS 1.6x FLM, 28x1.6=44.6mm which is actually not bad at all. that is, when shootign streets. i was using a EF 28-105 and magically thr field of view nicely coincides with my vision 
. one of the gentlemen buying my friend's lens actually remarked that he shares my vision...and for those times when he really needs a wideangle, he uses the EF20/2.8 :light: DOF issues aside, assuming that u share my vision, here are the conclusions for digital EOS:
(i) this gives us an incentive to try the EF 28/1.8. seems like ~nobody~ ever uses this low profile lens :think:
(ii)50/1.8 becomes heaven! (80/1.8)
(iii) if extending zooms (read: rubbishy build quality) dont bother u at all, it means EF28-105 or EF24-85 or EF28-135 for low cost, and EF28-70L or EF24-70L for optical quality n speed
(iv)EF17-35L and EF17-40L and EF16-35L now all fall quite low on the "focal length priority" list. even thou they have better build quality that those in group (iii). which means, might as well get EF 20/2.8 . cheaper. ;-)
. one of the gentlemen buying my friend's lens actually remarked that he shares my vision...and for those times when he really needs a wideangle, he uses the EF20/2.8 :light: DOF issues aside, assuming that u share my vision, here are the conclusions for digital EOS:(i) this gives us an incentive to try the EF 28/1.8. seems like ~nobody~ ever uses this low profile lens :think:
(ii)50/1.8 becomes heaven! (80/1.8)
(iii) if extending zooms (read: rubbishy build quality) dont bother u at all, it means EF28-105 or EF24-85 or EF28-135 for low cost, and EF28-70L or EF24-70L for optical quality n speed
(iv)EF17-35L and EF17-40L and EF16-35L now all fall quite low on the "focal length priority" list. even thou they have better build quality that those in group (iii). which means, might as well get EF 20/2.8 . cheaper. ;-)
