Subject: | RE: [OM] another philosophical question about the 135 |
---|---|
From: | "gries" <gries@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:42:31 -0500 |
<SNIP>... subjective, non-scientific judgement ;-). It's good to hear so many good things about both lenses. I would definitely *need* highest contrast and resolution as I am photographing arch. Details, and if the 2.8 is just as small, then why not spend the extra $, right? Isn't that how a true zuikoholic would justify it? < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html > |
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Re: Roger Key's quest for a Gitzo [Part 2], ll . clark |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] OT crappie & more OT, Mike Williamson |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] another philosophical question about the 135, Chris Barker |
Next by Thread: | RE: [OM] another philosophical question about the 135, bhinderks |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |