Subject: | Re: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2? |
---|---|
From: | NSURIT@xxxxxxx |
Date: | Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:56:32 EDT |
In a message dated 7/29/02 3:36:22 PM Central Daylight Time, rgg@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > but an f4 aperture? that's almost pinhole! ;) > > If you could break off the relationship you have with Velvia and use something a couple of stops faster, you'd be back in the game. We are talking limited kit, so I might put up with the slower zoom and carry a 50mm f1.4 for those very few cases that only the very fastest will do (fastest I own, that is). Bill Barber |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Bill Stanke |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Robert Gries |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Jim Couch |
Next by Thread: | RE: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?, Robert Gries |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |