Subject: | Re: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2? |
---|---|
From: | NSURIT@xxxxxxx |
Date: | Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:24:51 EDT |
In a message dated 7/29/02 3:16:42 PM Central Daylight Time, rgg@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > . A 24 is not being > considered because it is too close to the 21, and I worry that the 35 is > too close to the 50.... > > And for those of us who are too compulsive to make a decision, how about the Zuiko 28-48mm f4 zoom. This assumes you don't have a collection of all the Zuikos and a body for each. Seriously, this lens is fairly light and small and is a nice range for a limited kit. Bill Barber |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Timpe, Jim |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Robert Gries |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Robert Gries |
Next by Thread: | RE: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Robert Gries |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |