If the small difference in angle of view between the two lenses is not important, why would anyone want to choose the SA over the Symmar? The Symmar has more coverage, lighter, and less expensive. Am I missing anything?

-- Michael Yuen (myuen@attbi.com), March 06, 2002

Answers

I would say the obvious answer is the one that would convince me. You can crop a frame from the 90 to look like the 110. You can't do the reverse. 110 just isn't very wide. (Less relevent if you already have a 75 or something, I suppose.)

If you want lighter consider a 90 f8 (I use the Nikon, works great).

-- Noshir Patel (nosh@bigfoot.com), March 06, 2002.

In situations where you have the room to move around 90 and 110 might seem close, but there is substantial difference, and when you don't have the room, like in a tight interior, there is no comparison. I have 65, 72, 90, and 121 and am still seriously considering the 110 and 58 for the rare situations that they are the only lenses that will work. If you shoot outdoors and tend to do nature then the 110 can be a betterchoice for the very wide to wide lens option.

-- Rob Tucher (rtphotodoc@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

I guess it's the difference between having a 28 mm lens or a 35 mm lens in 135 format. The 35 (110) is so much better corrected than the 28 (90) and yet the 28 lacks a photojounalistic "snap" of a 20 (65) or 24 (75).

I'd love to get a 110 as I rarely use my 90 SA. But it needn't have all the bells and whistles that the Super Symmar 110 5.6XL provides. It's nothing against that lens (which is superb) but I can't justify spending that much money on what should be a relatively inexpensive focal length.

-- David Grandy (dgrandy@grandyphoto.com), March 06, 2002.