I'm not trying to dispute the notion that 24mm isn't that wide on a 1.6x body, the 10-22mm EF-S lens is more like it if you need true wide angle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hurrah - agreement
Yes even wider than 16 is a good place to start
With the 12 I believe it goes in the bin if the poster upgrades to a 5D in time though
------------
I think I come from a very dated/luddite culture of lense and camera buying
I consider 2.8 to be slow and slower - unuseable - the only slower lenses I have slower than 2.8 are 'special purpose'; 600 and a 28 rise/fall
I rarely zoom at all
I would on a FF go for primes 24, 50, 135 or 180 - in film days that would have been on two or three bodies, I suppose on a cropped chip that is 14, 35 and the 85
SMM