NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>In a message dated 1/9/2006 9:03:46 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>danmitchell@xxxxxxxx writes:
>
>Just catching up on email -- personally, I like the 65-200/4, it has a
>nice combination of size, weight, range, and useful "macro" (1:3 or so).
>Assuming you can find a clean one, definitely worth a look.
>
>The problem being the cloudy rear element.
>
Yes, too much hassle and risk when there are so many other good
alternatives.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|