and, oh!
By the way, looking tru' the viewfinder of my 100 USD OM-2n, with 50
1,8 mounted after having been used for a while to a 350D with f/3.5 as
the most luminous....
I had the impression of breathing again after a long aphnea.... :-)
Cheers
Alfredo
On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:16 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
>
> Yeah, but I don't own any Zuiko Digital lenses. ;-)
>
> I didn't figure that the kit lens was going to be a great lens. I was
> just saying that it covers a pretty useful range and that it's not
> overly bulky. You tend to pretty much get what you pay for with
> optics and you aren't paying a lot for the standard kit lens. I'm not
> a huge fan of C@non products in general, but my understanding is that
> they make some nice stuff at the pricier end of their range. God
> knows I see pros toting enough of it around.
>
> On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:49 AM, alfredo pagliano wrote:
>
>> A more fair comparison would be with a 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko
>> Digital....
>>
>> Moreover, I've used both a 17-85 IS and a 10-22, and had a very hard
>> time deciding which one was the worst.
>> Let's say that if the 17-85 is a pechinese, the 10-22 is a chihuaua, I
>> mean, both are dogs, of some different species... ;-)
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|