Welcome from Bellevue...at least I am not a 206er.
I have to agree with Vick, a 90 mm lens is pretty wide. It works well if you are doing interior architecture; however, for landscape it is hard to isolate subjects you want people to look at. For people such a wide angle lens tends to distort their appearance. 150 or thereabouts is pretty versatile.
I would predict that you will want longer rather than shorter over time.
Welcome Paul!
A Washingtonian from the dry side of the Cascades will help "even the balance" around here!
My 110/150/240 kit takes care of about 97% of my diverse landscape needs.
We look forward to seeing images from your sunny region.
Welcome from Kennewick. I think a 90mm is to wide on this side (of course it depends on your subject and eye). I shoot mostly a 210mm and am looking at picking up a 300mm. If you are going into the Cascades and shooting forested areas you may want to got with a 135/150mm. Even though a 4x5 lens has a 35mm equivilent, it is different because of the different aspect ratio. If you have been shooting 35mm and use a 28mm a lot, go with a 135mm.
If you know someone with a 4x5 ask to check out a couple of their lenses.
A quick drift: I am originally from California, when we say I am going to the Eastside, it meant east of the Sierra. In Washington, the "Eastside" is east of Seattle but west of the Cascades. Over here we call west of the Cascades the Westside. So what about east of the Cascades? (please no "just the rightwing rednecks over there") Isn't that the Eastside? I don't know why this bugs me but it does!
Last edited by srbphoto; 31-Dec-2009 at 17:47. Reason: clarify
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks